About The Companion Report.

What this site is

The AI companion industry is growing faster than the coverage of it. The Companion Report tries to close that gap: long reviews that read like a friend talking, real comparisons, honest opinions on the apps people are actually using, and serious coverage of the romance and adult market that most outlets pretend doesn\'t exist.

Everything here is independent. We test what we can, we cite primary sources when we can\'t, we keep our opinions opinionated and the disclaimers where they belong.

Who runs this

The site is run by one person, who goes by J. The byline is intentionally short. This niche attracts harassment, and a one-person editorial outfit doesn\'t need a public face to do honest work. If you want to know what we stand for and how we make decisions, the editorial standards page is more useful than knowing my last name.

If you have a tip, a correction, or a story to share, the contact page goes straight to me. I read everything.

Who reads it

Four audiences, in roughly the priority we serve them:

1. Newcomers. Curious, sometimes lonely, undecided about whether to try a companion app. Need a clear path to a real recommendation.
2. Romance and NSFW seekers. Looking for romantic or adult experiences. We cover this market with the same care as the wellness one. The Adult section is built for you.
3. Current users. Already use one. Want comparisons, optimization tips, news, community.
4. Journalists, researchers, founders. The original audience the site was framed for, still served, no longer the lead.

How we are funded

Reader-supported via affiliate links. We have not enabled affiliate links yet (we are building toward enough traffic to make it worth doing). When we do, every page that contains them will carry the FTC affiliate disclosure visible above the fold, and verdicts will not be for sale.

We do not accept sponsored placements, paid reviews, or guest posts. Vendors may suggest topics or correct factual errors, and we read every email, but we do not change verdicts in exchange for a correction.

What we are not pretending

Honest about a few things up front, because we would rather you trust the site than be impressed by it.

We are not (yet) doing thirty-day hands-on reviews ourselves. That is the moat the original positioning leaned on, and we are building toward it. In the meantime, every review is honest about what is based on synthesis (public information, app-store reviews, community discussion, vendor docs, third-party reporting) and what is based on direct testing. When we have done the testing, we say so. When we have not, we say that too.

We do not have a forum yet. The community page points you to the places where the conversation is already happening (Reddit, Discord, research communities). When traffic justifies it, we will host conversation here. Right now, an empty forum on a small site looks like what it is.

We are not a crisis service. Neither are AI companion apps. Crisis resources are listed prominently on the community page.

Editorial standards

Our full editorial standards (sourcing, voice rules, the things we will not publish, corrections policy) are at /about/standards. Read those if you want to know what we do and do not do.

Contact

Tips, corrections, story ideas: use the contact form.

Want to share what it\'s been like to actually use one of these apps? Share your story for the From the readers column.

RSS feed: /rss.xml