Candy AI
#5 on the ranking
Candy AI is the category's reference point, and after a month with it I understand why.
Read my full Candy AI analysis →AI girlfriend sites side by side · Both tested first-hand · Data through September 2026
vs
I bought a membership on both and tested each for a month. What they offer, their measured numbers and what their users say, next to each other, with my verdict on each at the end.
The scoreboard
CrushOn AI leads on 2 of the 4 figures that decide most choices.
In short
| What they offer | ||
|---|---|---|
| Free tier | No | No |
| Entry paid plan | $13.99/mo | $5.99/mo |
| Adult content | Allowed on paid plans | Allowed on paid plans |
| Features |
|
|
| Best for | Users wanting a widely recognized platform with expressive chat and flexible pricing who can tolerate slower response speeds | Users wanting anime-style NSFW chat and image generation at a budget-friendly price with crypto payment |
| Not for | Those who need real-time live calling or a strong free tier to evaluate before paying | Those seeking realistic character styles, voice interaction, a mobile app, or a free preview before signing up |
| Operator | EverAI Limited | Peekaboo Tech Inc. |
| Pricing notes | 1 Month: $13.99. 3 Months: ~$26.97 (~$8.99/mo). 12 Months: ~$47.88 (~$3.99/mo). Tokens (used for voice, images, and video) are included per tier with add-on packs available. Cryptocurrency payments accepted. | Monthly: $5.99, $49.90 depending on tier. Yearly: $58.88, $358.80. Cryptocurrency accepted. |
My take
Neither has a real free tier, so you are choosing on price and features from the start. CrushOn AI is the cheaper way in at $5.99/mo against $13.99/mo for Candy AI. The entry price is only part of it: image, voice and video are often metered on top, so the pricing notes row matters as much as the headline.
| The numbers | ||
|---|---|---|
| Rank on this siteOn the combined data gathered for every site | ▲#5 | #14 |
| Google US rank, “ai girlfriend”DataForSEO ranked keywords, September 2026 | #11 | – |
| Tranco rank, all domainsAll-traffic rank among the top million domains | #12,246 | ▲#5,840 |
| Chrome UX tierGoogle Chrome UX Report | Top 10,000 | ▲Top 5,000 |
| Search visits a month, worldwideDataForSEO estimate | 592,075 | ▲1,645,538 |
| Search visits a month, US | 116,063 | ▲319,350 |
| Brand searches a month, USGoogle Ads data via DataForSEO | 301,000 | ▲450,000 |
| Domain RatingDomain Rating by Ahrefs, out of 100 | 76 | ▲85 |
| Referring domains | 4,683 | ▲14,733 |
| Backlinks | ▲127,630,165 | 4,802,187 |
| Domain registered | December 2017 | May 2023 |
| Public record I read | 17 videos, 8 Reddit threads, 10 articles | 7 videos, 9 Reddit threads, 7 articles |
The better value in each row is marked in green. Search visits and brand searches are DataForSEO estimates; Tranco and Chrome UX tiers are ranks, not visit counts.
My take
Start with the row this site ranks on. When someone types "ai girlfriend" into Google in the US, Candy AI is there at #11; CrushOn AI does not appear in the tracked positions at all. That is why Candy AI sits higher here even if it is the smaller site: it is the one the category sends newcomers to. On size, CrushOn AI is the busier site: 1,645,538 search visits a month worldwide, about three times what Candy AI gets (592,075). These are estimates of visits from Google only, so a site with apps or ads can be bigger than this shows. Brand searches are the loyalty line: 450,000 people a month type CrushOn AI's name, against 301,000 for Candy AI. A name people type on purpose is a site they come back to; a site with lots of visits and few brand searches is living on rankings it could lose. Candy AI is the older domain (2017 against 2023), which counts for something in a category where sites close without notice. In plain terms: CrushOn AI is bigger, Candy AI is the one the category search points to.
| Feature by feature | ||
|---|---|---|
| Chat and roleplay | Users mixedMy test: Agree | Users mixedMy test: Partly disagree |
| Memory | Users positiveMy test: Agree | Users mixedMy test: Agree |
| Image generation | Users positiveMy test: Agree | – |
| Voice calls | Users mixedMy test: Agree | – |
| Video ('Live Action') | Users mixedMy test: Partly disagree | – |
| Characters and customisation | Users positiveMy test: Agree | – |
| Free tier | Users negativeMy test: Agree | – |
| Price and tokens | Users negativeMy test: Agree | – |
| Privacy and billing | Users mixedMy test: Agree | Users negativeMy test: Agree |
| Safety and legitimacy | Users positiveMy test: Agree | – |
| Model choice | – | Users mixedMy test: Agree |
| Images and voice | – | Users negativeMy test: Disagree |
| Characters and the creator community | – | Users positiveMy test: Agree |
| Group chat and World Cards | – | Users positiveMy test: Agree |
| Free tier and coins | – | Users mixedMy test: Partly disagree |
| Price and message caps | – | Users mixedMy test: Agree |
| Safety, support and legitimacy | – | Users mixedMy test: Agree |
“Users” is the balance of the YouTube reviews, Reddit threads and articles read for each brand page; “my test” is whether my own month on the site agreed with them.
My take
Users are happier with Candy AI: 4 of its 10 features come out positive, against CrushOn AI's 2 of 10, with 2 features where the complaints win. Where they split, Candy AI gets the better word on memory. My own month did not always match the crowd: I disagreed with users on 1 point for Candy AI and 3 points for CrushOn AI, and each disagreement is spelled out on the brand page.
My verdict on each
Candy AI
#5 on the ranking
Candy AI is the category's reference point, and after a month with it I understand why.
Read my full Candy AI analysis →CrushOn AI
#14 on the ranking
CrushOn AI is the biggest site I track, and it got there by being a roleplay platform, not a girlfriend app.
Read my full CrushOn AI analysis →More comparisons
Written by Hunter Gray, Founder, Owner & Writer. Every figure is from the two brand pages and refreshes monthly. Candy AI and CrushOn AI are two of the sites in my best AI girlfriend ranking, where the whole category is ordered on the same data.