Favikon vs Modash: Credits, Coverage and What the Public Pages Reveal (2026)
Favikon vs Modash: Credits, Coverage and What the Public Pages Reveal (2026)
Both tools sell you access to a creator index by the credit. Favikon starts at 159 dollars a month, Modash at 199. On paper they are close competitors at a similar price. In practice they answer two different questions, and the public pages of each site tell you more about which one fits your work than either pricing page does.
This comparison keeps three kinds of statement separate: facts verifiable on a public page today, vendor claims the companies make about themselves, and user reports from review platforms and forums. Self-reported material is labelled.
The short answer
| If your bottleneck is… | Pick |
|---|---|
| Ranking and benchmarking creators by niche | Favikon |
| Filtering a large index by audience criteria | Modash |
| Cheapest cost per credit | Favikon |
| Pulling data into your own product | Modash, at a published price |
| Auditing a specific country or market | Neither, without testing it first |
| Showing a brand figures that are measured, not inferred | ProveitGo |
Pricing, as published
Favikon publishes two paid tiers with three billing cycles each. Core at 199, 179 or 159 dollars a month depending on commitment, for 500 credits a month. Pro at 299, 269 or 239 dollars, for 1,000 credits. Enterprise is quote only.
That works out to 0.32 dollars per credit on Core annual, and 0.24 on Pro annual. It is among the lowest published unit prices in the category.
Modash publishes Essentials at 299 dollars a month, or 199 billed annually for 2,388 a year, giving 300 profile unlocks a month. Performance at 599, or 499 annually, for 800 profiles. Enterprise starts at 14,700 dollars a year.
At the entry annual tier that is roughly 1.00 dollar per profile unlock, so three to four times Favikon's unit price. Whether that matters depends entirely on whether a Favikon credit and a Modash unlock buy you the same thing, which they do not.
What each one is actually built to do
Favikon is a ranking and benchmarking product. Its public surface makes this obvious: its sitemap carries 641 public ranking pages, 519 for creators and 122 for brands. Every one of them is organised by niche, not by country. If your question is "who are the top creators in beauty, in gaming, in fintech", Favikon is built around that question.
Its audience feature set is broader than most, and it publishes the list: "Analyze follower demographics including age, location, credibility, political leaning, and cause affinity for precise audience targeting". Political leaning and cause affinity are unusual additions. Treat them as vendor claims, because no methodology page supports them.
Modash is a filtered search product. Its value is in narrowing a large index by audience criteria until a shortlist falls out. Its public country pages, at modash.io/find-influencers/tiktok/<country>, show the shape of that: around twenty creators per country, each with an audience country breakdown and an audience gender split.
So the short version: Favikon answers "who is on top of this niche", Modash answers "who matches these audience constraints". Buying the wrong one for your question is a more expensive mistake than a 0.08 dollar difference per credit.
API access, where they diverge hardest
Modash publishes its API price. Discovery API from 16,200 dollars a year, Raw API from 10,000. The credit grid is public: 0.01 credit for a search, 1 credit for an audience report, 1 for an influencer report, 0.025 per result for AI search. The FAQ states plainly that "we currently don't offer any monthly or pay-as-you-go plans", and payment is by bank transfer only. Expensive and rigid, but you know the number before you talk to anyone.
Favikon gates its API behind Enterprise. The comparison table carries an API row, described as "Get Favikon data in your app", and the tick appears only in the Enterprise column. There is no public documentation: favikon.com/api returns a 404 and the documentation subdomain does not resolve. The price is not published anywhere.
If your plan involves an API, that asymmetry is decisive. One vendor gives you a number to budget against today. The other requires a sales conversation before you learn whether it is even affordable.
Two probes worth running before you pay
Neither of these costs anything, and both take under a minute.
Probe one: the fake identifier. Type a country or handle that cannot exist into the vendor's public URL structure. On several tools in this category, an invented slug returns a 200 status code with a complete page layout, sometimes with the page title assembled from the string you typed. That is a programmatic template, not evidence of coverage. A vendor whose pages 404 on a fake slug is running a curated list, which is the behaviour you want.
Favikon's public pages return a 200 for an invented slug, because the site is a single page application whose router accepts any path. Look at the rendered body rather than the status code: it carries 404 markers and a generic title, so this is a routing artefact rather than fabricated data. The lesson generalises. A 200 proves nothing on its own.
Probe two: read the page without JavaScript. Fetch app.favikon.com/public/ranking/creators/leaderboard/ as plain HTML and you get roughly 84 kilobytes containing 101 script tags, zero occurrences of the word "followers", and not one creator name. Everything is injected client side. That is normal for a modern app, and it matters for one practical reason: you cannot sample the index cheaply to judge coverage before buying. With Modash's country pages, you can, because the creators and their audience splits are in the served HTML.
On country coverage specifically, Favikon's 641 ranking pages contain no country pages at all. If a comparison tells you otherwise, it is describing a site structure that no longer exists.
What each vendor discloses about its method
Modash documents its method, and the wording is unusually frank. Its help centre states that audience age and gender come from "image recognition and profile analysis", computed on "a statistical sample of the audience", to be treated "as a strong indicator rather than exact numbers". Country is derived from location tags, languages, captions and bios. Demographics are unavailable when a creator hides their follower list.
Favikon publishes no comparable methodology. The features are listed, the derivation is not, and the more unusual claims like political leaning have no published basis at all.
Neither publishes a sample size per creator. Neither publishes a margin of error. When several vendors in this category were asked those two questions directly, in writing, none answered them.
That silence is what makes a third approach worth knowing about. ProveitGo publishes an audience figure only when it comes from the platform's own Insights, with the sample size printed beside it and the population named. A number a brand can trace back to its source carries weight that an unsourced estimate never will.
What users report
Labelled as user reports.
Favikon holds 4.1 out of 5 on Trustpilot across 41 reviews, with 78 percent at five stars. Read the distribution before the average: the five star reviews cluster in a narrow window between late 2025 and early 2026, and many name the same support agent, which is the signature of reviews solicited at ticket close rather than volunteered. Among the negative reviews, one from January 2026 reads: "Customer support is unresponsive, and the data is completely inaccurate."
Favikon is also recommended repeatedly on forums, sometimes by accounts that also publish promotional articles about it. Weigh that accordingly.
Modash carries a thin footprint: 4.9 on Capterra across 15 reviews, several marked vendor referred with an incentive offered, plus one Trustpilot review. Fifteen reviews support no conclusion. The recurring forum complaint is regional, with practitioners reporting weak data quality in European markets.
The thing neither one will tell you
Both will show you an audience age split. Neither will tell you how far it is from the truth.
One practitioner published the only direct comparison available in public. Running several unofficial providers against the same creator, they reported that the providers agreed closely with one another, then diverged from the creator's own platform Insights by "almost 50 percent margins". One person, one creator, so read it as a signal rather than a measurement. But the mechanism behind it is not in dispute: a large share of these platforms buy their base index from the same upstream supplier, which is why their numbers agree. Agreement between resellers of one source is not accuracy.
The only audience figures with no inference in them come from the creator's own platform. Instagram and YouTube both expose them, at no cost, through the creator's own authorisation.
Where ProveitGo sits
ProveitGo is built on that distinction rather than on index size.
On a ProveitGo profile, the audience figures are measured, not inferred. They come from the platform's own Insights, verified before they are published. Nothing is guessed from a profile picture, and nothing is extrapolated from a sample of follower names. Beside every figure sits the sample size and the name of the population it was measured on, which is precisely the disclosure missing from both tools in this comparison.
Anything that has not been measured is left empty rather than estimated. For a brand deciding where to spend, an empty field is worth more than a confident number with an unpublished error bar.
A free audit runs on any creator, without an account. Put one next to whatever Favikon or Modash reports for the same handle.
How to choose, in one paragraph
If your work is benchmarking creators inside defined niches, and you want the lowest published cost per credit, Favikon at 0.24 to 0.32 dollars per credit is hard to beat on price. If your work is filtering a large index by audience criteria, or you need an API with a price you can budget for today, Modash is the stronger choice despite costing three to four times more per unlock. If your target market is a country neither publishes pages for, test coverage with a handful of real handles before you commit to an annual contract, because neither company documents where its index is thin.
And if the constraint is not finding creators but proving what their audience actually looks like, ProveitGo is the alternative to both: an audience figure appears only when it can be sourced, with its sample size beside it, and the field stays empty when it cannot be measured. Different job, different tool, and worth knowing before signing a year.
Related reading
Verify before you pay. Prove after you launch.
ProveitGo detects fake followers, bot engagement and fraud, then tracks real conversions. One dashboard, 60 seconds.
Run an Influencer Audit →
