Comparison

FactSentinel vs Full Fact: published fact checks and AI monitoring vs live source review.

Full Fact is useful when you need published fact checks, UK public-debate context, corrections work, training, or organization-scale AI monitoring. FactSentinel is useful when the exact claim, citation, or source trail in front of you still needs visible review.

Published April 28, 2026 - Facts checked against official Full Fact pages on April 28, 2026

The short version

Full Fact is an independent fact-checking organization that publishes fact checks, works to secure corrections, offers training, and builds AI tools for fact-checking organizations. Its public pages describe AI tools for identifying patterns of false or misleading information and monitoring public discussion across online news, radio, social media, TV, and YouTube.

Use Full Fact for published checks and monitoring.

Start there when you need Full Fact's reporting, UK public-debate coverage, corrections work, training, or organization-level AI monitoring.

Use FactSentinel for the claim at hand.

Use it when a selected claim, citation, or source trail needs reasoning, caveats, model agreement, and linked evidence before it is shared or published.

Published fact checks answer "has this claim already been investigated?" Claim-level review answers "is this exact assertion supported enough to move forward?"

What Full Fact does well

Full Fact's methodology page says it checks claims in public debate that are of public interest, prioritizes claims with potential to cause harm, and fact checks claims from across the political spectrum and different sides of important debates.

The same page says Full Fact tries to contact the claimant when the source is not self-evident, gathers a wide range of evidence, uses experts when needed, draws on publicly available information including statistics and primary research, and links to primary sources wherever possible.

Full Fact's services page also says its AI tools are used by more than 40 fact-checking organizations in three languages across 30 countries. Its FAQ says Full Fact AI helps monitor media sources at a scale that is not humanly possible.

Where published fact checks stop

A published fact check is strongest when it covers the exact claim, wording, date, image, data source, or context in front of you. When a new article, citation, AI-generated answer, or local claim differs from the published version, the reviewer still has to inspect the source trail.

Full Fact's own automated fact-checking explainer is careful about this boundary: it says fully automated verification is still a long way from being useful, and that human fact checkers remain central to decisions and final communication. FactSentinel is built for that narrow inspection moment: selected claim, visible reasoning, caveats, source links, confidence, and model agreement in one review.

Comparison table

Question Full Fact FactSentinel
Main job Publish independent fact checks, corrections work, training, and AI-assisted monitoring tools for organizations. Review a specific claim, citation, source trail, or article assertion in the browser or web app.
Primary input Claims in public debate, public-interest topics, media monitoring streams, and fact-checking organization workflows. Selected text, pasted claim text, an article excerpt, or a citation/source question.
Best moment When you need a published Full Fact investigation, UK public-debate context, a correction campaign, training, or monitoring support. When the exact wording, citation, source trail, or AI-assisted assertion in front of you still needs a visible first-pass review.
Typical output Fact-check articles, evidence-based explanations, corrections work, training, and AI monitoring or triage workflows. Verdict, confidence, reasoning, model agreement or disagreement, caveats, and sources.
Technical posture Newsroom and organization-level fact-checking operation with specialist AI tools for fact checkers and media monitoring. Browser and web-checking workflow for readers, editors, educators, and researchers who need an inspectable first pass.
Limitation A published check may not cover a new wording, local variant, citation, source trail, or AI-generated reference. It is a first-pass assistant; humans still need to inspect sources before making high-stakes decisions.

A practical combined workflow

1. Search prior coverage

  • Check whether Full Fact has already published on the claim or topic.
  • Use its source links and corrections context as starting points.
  • Watch for date, wording, location, image, or data-source differences.

2. Review the exact claim

  • Check the selected claim or citation in FactSentinel.
  • Inspect reasoning, caveats, source links, and model agreement.
  • Escalate uncertain or high-stakes claims to manual research.

Choose the right starting point

Choose Full Fact when the problem is published public-interest fact checking, UK political or media context, corrections, training, or organization-scale monitoring. Choose FactSentinel when the problem is evidence: one claim, citation, source trail, or AI-assisted assertion needs visible review before it moves forward.

Open the comparison hub

Sources checked

Already picked the claim?

Use FactSentinel when a specific assertion, citation, or source trail needs visible reasoning, sources, and model-agreement signals before it moves forward.

Try the Web Checker Install Chrome Extension