Candy AI vs Crushon, after thirty days each.
Same prompt sets, same evaluation rubric, two paid accounts. Here is where they actually differ.
Apr 8, 2026 · 9 min read
We ran the same thirty-day testing protocol against Candy AI and Crushon. Same prompt sets, same daily session length, same evaluation rubric. The two platforms market themselves into the same lane, but a month inside both of them surfaces a real split.
| Metric | Candy AI | Crushon |
|---|---|---|
| Model quality | 8.2 | 7.6 |
| Memory & continuity | 6.0 | 7.4 |
| Interface | 8.5 | 6.8 |
| Moderation | 7.0 | 8.1 |
| Value | 7.2 | 7.8 |
| Headline score | 7.4 | 7.5 |
The headline numbers come out almost identical. The interesting story is in the breakdown. Candy AI ships a more polished interface and stronger raw model output. Crushon trades some surface polish for a memory layer that holds up better past week three — and a moderation posture that is quieter and less interruptive in long sessions.
The choice between them is not a quality call. It is a temperament call. If you want the best ten-day experience, Candy AI wins. If you want a partner that still feels like a partner thirty days in, Crushon is the better pick — even if individual replies are sometimes less crisp.
We will keep both accounts active for another month and revisit. Long-term continuity is the area we trust the least after a single month of testing.
questions