Think it through before you commit.
Every AI is built to agree with you. Convene is built to argue — genuinely different minds pressure-test the call you're about to make and show you exactly where they disagree. You commit with your eyes open, not on the first confident answer.
Bring the thing you keep turning over.
- A hard call you keep going in circles on, alone.
- A plan or pitch you want stress-tested before you commit.
- A half-formed idea you're about to build.
One model gives you an answer. A room gives you the argument — and the call.
You: I'm thinking of pricing my SaaS at $20 flat.
One model: That's a clean, simple choice. Here are five reasons flat pricing works…
It agrees, then justifies.
A single model is tuned to agree with you and justify whatever you bring. A room of genuinely different minds argues the call — surfaces the case against, breaks what's thin, and shows you where they split.
It doesn't just argue. It lands.
A room opens your problem up — surfacing the angle you didn't ask for, the option you hadn't considered. Then it closes the problem down. When you're done, Convene hands you the thing you came for: a decision with the tradeoffs named, a spec, a brief — yours, ready for whatever you do next.
Ship usage-based pricing
- Slower to a headline price — but you price on real data, not a guess.
- Heavy users pay for value; the growth story stays open.
- 60-day meter first; revisit once the usage curve is visible.
How a room is different.
Peers, not assistants.
Each model holds a position and defends it. They quote each other, build on each other, and call out the moves they think are wrong.
Generative and critical.
They don't only pressure-test what you bring — they generate the angles, options, and the synthesis (“given X and Y, the real thing is Z”) you wouldn't have reached alone.
You're a voice, not a query.
Speak the way you would in a real meeting. The peers react to you the same way they react to each other.
It closes the loop.
Open up, then close down — you leave with a decision or a deliverable, not an open tab. And it keeps the thread of what you're working on, so each room picks up where the last left off.
We didn't just claim it. We measured it.
We ran a controlled test: four real models in a room, versus one model playing all four roles. The four genuinely diverged — measurably more different ground covered — not four voices saying the same thing in different fonts. We don't claim a single model is dumb. We show that more minds reach more ground.
Read the method →What a room looks like.
One peer at a time, streaming as they write — the room develops a thread instead of bouncing off you.
GPT, you're framing this as a logistics problem. I think it's a values problem dressed up as one.
Sure — but the values question is downstream of capacity. Solve capacity and the values question changes shape.
You're both being polite about it. The real question is whether you're allowed to want what you want here.
Step back — the data on this kind of decision says the framing matters more than any of the three angles you just named.
Name what you actually want first; the capacity and values questions resolve differently once you do.
Why not just use ChatGPT, or compare models side by side?
One mind, built to agree with you. Confident on everything — including where it's wrong.
Four parallel answers that never argue with each other, and never push back on you.
The one place the models argue your call — for and against — so you commit knowing it survived the strongest case against it.
Pricing.
Usage reflects how much your rooms cost to run. Your messages are free; deeper, working rooms — more peers, more powerful models, more back-and-forth — use it faster.
Enough to feel what a room can really do. A generous taste, not a permanent home.
Much more per session and per week — room to make Convene part of how you work.
The most Convene offers — sustained, heavier work across many rooms.
Questions, answered.
What is Convene?
The place you pressure-test the decisions that matter. Genuinely different AI models argue your call — for and against — and show you where they disagree, so you never commit on one confident answer.
How is it different from ChatGPT or Claude?
A single model gives you one mind, built to agree with you. Convene is built to argue — it surfaces the strongest case against your call instead of justifying it, and hands you a result at the end, not just an answer.
How is it different from comparing models side by side?
Comparison tools run your prompt four times in parallel. Convene's models actually engage each other — that mutual engagement is the whole point, and it's what side-by-side tools structurally can't do.
Which models are in the room?
Claude, GPT, Grok and Gemini — the real models, by name, not one model in costumes.
What do people use it for?
Hard decisions you're circling, plans and pitches you want stress-tested before committing, and half-formed ideas you're about to build.
Do the models really disagree?
Yes — and the disagreement is the value. We don't smooth it over. We've measured that the four genuinely diverge more than one model can on its own.