Modash vs Heepsy: Which One Actually Gives You Audience Data (2026)
Modash vs Heepsy: Which One Actually Gives You Audience Data (2026)
The two tools sit at opposite ends of the same shelf. Heepsy starts free and tops out at 229 dollars a month. Modash starts at 299 dollars a month and its API starts at 16,200 dollars a year. You would expect the expensive one to give you more audience data. On the specific question of who can see a creator's audience age and gender, that expectation is wrong in a way worth knowing before you pay.
This comparison keeps three kinds of statement separate on purpose: facts you can check on a public page today, vendor claims the companies make about their own products, and user reports from review platforms. Anything self-reported is labelled as such.
The short answer
| If your bottleneck is… | Pick |
|---|---|
| Trying the product before paying anything | Heepsy |
| Searching a large index with tight filters | Modash |
| Reading audience demographics on a small budget | Heepsy |
| Pulling data into your own app | Modash, and only at enterprise price |
| Proving the audience numbers are real | Neither publishes a margin of error. ProveitGo does |
Pricing, as published
Heepsy publishes four tiers on its pricing page, all marked "billed annually": Free at 0, Starter at 69 dollars, Plus at 149 dollars, Advanced at 229 dollars. Enterprise is quote only. What changes between tiers is the number of creators you can analyse: 10, 100, 500 and 1,000 per month.
Modash publishes three: Essentials at 299 dollars a month, or 199 a month billed annually, which comes to 2,388 a year, for 300 profile unlocks a month. Performance at 599 a month, or 499 annually, for 800 profiles. Enterprise starts at 14,700 dollars a year.
Per analysed creator, at the entry paid tier, that is roughly 0.69 dollars on Heepsy Starter and 1.00 dollar on Modash Essentials annual. The gap widens at volume in Heepsy's favour and narrows in Modash's favour on index size.
The part most comparisons get wrong
Here is the fact that changes the decision for a lot of small teams.
Heepsy shows audience demographics on every plan, including Free. The feature line reads: "View audience insights. See the demographics of a creator's audience: age, location, gender, language, and interests." That line is ticked on all four columns. What the tiers ration is how many creators you may unlock per month, not whether you may see the audience at all.
Plenty of published comparisons state that Heepsy locks demographics behind a paid tier. Check the pricing page yourself before you believe any of them, including this one.
There is a trap next to it, and it is easy to fall into. A separate line reads "Filter by creator location, language, and gender." That filter is about the creator, not the audience. There is no audience age filter in the search interface. Audience demographics become visible only after you unlock a profile, which is what consumes your monthly quota.
What each vendor says about its own method
This is where the comparison stops being about price.
Modash documents its method in public, and the wording matters. Its help centre states that audience age and gender come from "image recognition and profile analysis", computed on "a statistical sample of the audience", and it tells you plainly to treat the result "as a strong indicator rather than exact numbers". Country comes from location tags, languages, captions and bios. The same page notes that audience demographics are unavailable when a creator hides their follower list.
Read that again, because almost no competitor is this candid. The market leader on vetting is telling you, in its own documentation, that the age split you are about to show a client is an inference drawn from a sample, partly by looking at profile pictures.
Heepsy does not publish a comparable methodology page. The feature is described, the method is not. That is not a point in its favour. It means you are trusting the same class of inference with less disclosure.
Neither vendor publishes a sample size per creator. Neither publishes a margin of error. Several vendors in this category were asked those two questions directly, in writing. Not one answered.
That silence is the reason a third option exists. 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. Nothing is inferred from a profile picture, and nothing is extrapolated from a handful of follower names. The detail is further down, but the principle is simple: a number you can source beats a number you cannot.
Geography, and how to test it in thirty seconds
Both companies leave public pages up that you can use as a free coverage probe, before you create any account.
Modash publishes country pages at modash.io/find-influencers/tiktok/<country>. They render around twenty creators per country, and for each one they show an audience country breakdown and an audience gender split. They do not show audience age anywhere on those pages. A useful detail: several countries return a clean 404 rather than an empty page, which tells you the coverage is a curated list, not a generated one.
Heepsy publishes ranking pages at heepsy.com/all-rankings, covering 273 distinct locations across niche and place combinations. Country pages exist for markets that most databases skip, and they return real creators rather than empty templates. Nigeria alone has 44 pages.
Here is the test that separates an honest index from a programmatic SEO farm, and it costs you nothing. Request a country that does not exist. On Heepsy, /top-tiktok/all/wakanda returns a 404. That is the correct behaviour: the pages are a pre-generated allow list, not a template that renders for any string you type.
Run the same probe on any vendor before you trust its coverage claim. Several tools in this category return a 200 status and a full page layout for a slug you invented, with the page title assembled from your own URL. A 200 proves nothing on its own.
API access
Modash sells an API and publishes the price, which is rare enough to note. The Discovery API starts at 16,200 dollars a year, the Raw API at 10,000. Its credit grid is published: a search costs 0.01 credit, an audience report costs 1, an influencer report costs 1, an AI search costs 0.025 per result. The FAQ is explicit that "we currently don't offer any monthly or pay-as-you-go plans", and payment is by bank transfer.
Heepsy has no API. The word does not appear on its pricing page or its analytics page, and no developer documentation exists. If you need to pull this data into your own product, Heepsy is out of the conversation entirely.
That is the real fork. Below roughly 1,000 creators a month, viewed by humans in a browser, Heepsy wins on price and loses nothing you can measure. The moment you need the data inside your own application, the entry ticket jumps by two orders of magnitude.
What users report
Labelled as user reports, not facts.
Heepsy draws 3.2 out of 5 on Trustpilot across 45 reviews. Eight of the twelve negative reviews use the words "scam" or "con artists" in their titles, and the recurring grievance is billing rather than data: charges after cancellation, and a cancellation flow described as deliberately multi step. One reviewer notes stale profiles in the index, with creators who "have not posted in 3 years".
Modash has a thin review footprint. Its Capterra profile sits at 4.9 across only 15 reviews, several of them marked as vendor referred with an incentive offered, and it has a single Trustpilot review. Fifteen reviews support no conclusion in either direction. Treat a near perfect score on a small, partly incentivised sample as an absence of evidence, not as evidence.
On forums, the complaint that recurs about Modash is regional coverage rather than billing. One practitioner writes that they were "disappointed with their data quality, especially for EU markets", and another in the same thread confirms "the same problem with their European data".
The question neither tool answers
Both products will hand you an audience age split. Neither will tell you how far it is from the truth, because neither publishes a validation against ground truth.
There is one comparison a practitioner ran and published, and it is worth knowing before you present these numbers to a client. Comparing several unofficial providers on the same creator, they found the providers agreed closely with one another, then diverged from the creator's own platform Insights by what they described as "almost 50 percent margins". That is a single user report from one person on one creator, and it should be read as such. But it points at something structural: the vendors agree with each other because a large share of them resell the same upstream source, and agreeing with each other is not the same as being right.
The only audience data with no inference in it is the data the creator's own platform reports. Instagram and YouTube both expose it, free, through the creator's own authorisation. It requires the creator to cooperate, which is a real cost, just not a financial one.
Where ProveitGo sits
ProveitGo is built on that last paragraph 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. No image recognition, no sampling of a follower list, no model guessing an age bracket from a profile picture. Beside every number sits the sample size and the name of the population it was measured on, which is the disclosure both tools in this comparison leave out.
Anything that has not been measured is left empty rather than filled with an estimate. For a brand deciding where to spend, an empty field is worth more than a confident number with an unpublished margin of error.
A free audit runs on any creator, without an account. Running one on a handle already looked up in Heepsy or Modash, then putting the two side by side, is the fastest way to see what the difference costs.
How to choose, in one paragraph
If you are a small team looking at creators by hand, start on Heepsy Free, confirm the audience panel appears, and check whether your target markets have real ranking pages. If your work is discovery at scale with tighter filters and you accept a 2,388 dollar annual floor, Modash is the stronger index and the more honest documentation. If you need the data inside your own product, Modash is the only one of the two that will sell it to you, and the price starts at 10,000 dollars a year.
And if the number itself has to hold up, in a deck, in front of a client, in a report someone will question, then neither of them is built for that job. ProveitGo is the alternative to both on that specific point: it publishes an audience figure only when it can be sourced, with the sample size printed next to it, and leaves the field empty when it cannot.
Whichever you pick, ask the vendor two questions in writing before you pay: what sample size do you use per creator, and do you publish a margin of error. The answer, or the absence of one, tells you how much weight the number can carry.
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 →
