LLM Board sends your question, problems, or ideas to brainstorm to six leading AI models. Each answers independently. A chairman synthesizes a response. You see the consensus, the divergence, the summary, and every raw take.
Every AI model has biases baked into its training data. GPT leans one way on a policy question. Claude takes another angle. Gemini brings a third interpretation. When you ask just one, you inherit its blind spots.
For a quick email draft, that's fine. For a pricing strategy, a bigger business decision, an idea that needs brainstorming, a legal question, a technical architecture decision? You want the full picture. You want different and fresh perspectives. You want the disagreements surfaced, not hidden.
How it works
Type your question, describe a problem, or pitch an idea you want explored from every angle. Attach documents if needed. Pick your mode.
Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok, DeepSeek, and Kimi each tackle your input. In Council mode, they answer independently. In Brainstorm mode, they read, critique, and build on each other across three rounds.
The chairman reads all six responses, identifies where they agree and disagree, and gives you a clear synthesis with a recommendation. You can always expand every individual take.
Two approaches
All six models answer your question independently. No model sees another's answer. The chairman reads every response and produces a clear synthesis with points of agreement, disagreements, and a recommendation.
Direct synthesis. Chairman reads all responses and merges them. The default for most questions.
Adds an anonymous peer-ranking step. Each model scores every other response blindly. The chairman uses these scores to weigh the synthesis.
Max Thinking option doubles the reasoning depth (and roughly doubles cost). Good for complex analysis.
Strategy reviews, technical decisions, policy questions, market analysis. Anywhere you want six independent opinions distilled into one clear answer.
A fundamentally different approach. Three rounds of structured deliberation where models don't just answer; they read each other, critique, and revise their positions. Grok plays red team and challenges assumptions.
Initial positions
Each model submits an independent approach with reasoning, assumptions, and risks.
Critique and challenge
Models read all other positions, poke holes, and strengthen their own. Grok gets extra red-team instructions.
Revised final positions
Models submit final plans noting what changed. Chairman produces a merged decision brief.
Max Thinking roughly doubles cost but produces significantly deeper analysis.
Creative brainstorming, go-to-market strategies, investment analysis, product direction. For the problems where ideas need to collide and evolve, not just line up.
Costs vary based on response length and complexity. Prices shown are typical ranges, not fixed amounts. You'll see the total after each session.
The interface
See the synthesis. Expand any individual take. Ask follow-ups.
We're planning to enter the European market next quarter with our B2B logistics SaaS. Current ARR is $2.4M, mostly US mid-market. What should our go-to-market strategy look like? Where are we likely to underestimate the effort?
Points of Agreement
All six models agree you should start with a single market (UK or Netherlands) rather than a pan-European launch. Five of six flag GDPR data residency as the most underestimated workstream. The consensus is that your US mid-market playbook won't transfer directly; European B2B logistics buyers expect local references and longer sales cycles.
Key Disagreement
The split is on UK vs Netherlands as the entry market. Claude, GPT, and Kimi favor the Netherlands (logistics hub, English-friendly, EU access). Gemini and DeepSeek argue UK (larger market, no language barrier, existing connections). Grok flagged that "starting with one market" often becomes "stuck in one market" without a 12-month expansion trigger.
Recommendation
Start with the Netherlands. Hire a local commercial lead before you open the office. Budget 6 months to first deal, not 3. Set a hard trigger to expand to Germany by month 14 regardless of NL traction.
Detailed Analysis
On market selection: Gemini argues the UK's larger addressable market ($4.2B logistics SaaS TAM) outweighs the Netherlands' cultural fit. GPT counters that UK post-Brexit regulatory divergence creates hidden compliance costs that will erode your first-year...
Shortened for this preview. Real syntheses are much more detailed, quoting each model by name with specific analysis, competing arguments, and actionable next steps.
Use cases
"We're entering the EU market next quarter. Brainstorm 8 go-to-market angles we haven't considered."
Brainstorming
"Here's our pricing model. Stress-test it. What breaks at 10x scale? What are competitors doing differently?"
Pricing strategy
"Three vendors responded to our RFP. Here are the proposals. Help me compare them systematically."
Vendor evaluation
"We're stuck between three technical approaches for our data pipeline. What are fresh ways to think about this?"
Problem solving
"Review this investment memo. Where are the assumptions weakest? What's the bear case we're ignoring?"
Financial analysis
"We're launching a new product line. Brainstorm 10 positioning angles, then rank them by defensibility."
Product launches
Why it works
Models don't see each other's responses. They can't anchor to the first answer. Each one reasons from scratch, so you get genuinely different perspectives before the synthesis.
When five models agree and one dissents, that dissent is worth reading. When they split 3-3, you've found the crux of the decision. The synthesis surfaces this.
In Deep Brainstorm mode, Grok 4 gets extra instructions to challenge assumptions and find weaknesses. Your ideas get stress-tested, not just validated.
You always see the synthesis and every individual take, with token counts and costs. Nothing is hidden. You decide how deep to read.
Pricing
Costs depend on how much each model writes. Short questions cost less; detailed analysis costs more. You see the total after each session. Top up with as little as $5.
~$0.70
Council Med
typical session
~$1.20
Council High
typical session
~$2.00
Brainstorm
typical session
Max Thinking mode roughly doubles these. Longer, more detailed sessions cost more.
Start with $2 free credit
No credit card required. Top up from $5.
For context: a Deep Brainstorm session costs about the same as a coffee. It gives you the equivalent of six independent expert takes synthesized into one brief.
$2 free credit. No card required. Ask something that actually matters to you and see how six models handle it.