Sourced comparison

Kondensa vs generic mailbox summaries

Direct answer: summaries built into consumer mailboxes (Gmail-, Copilot-style) condense an inbox at a given moment to make it faster to read; they do not publish a guarantee of systematic, verified citation for every value. Kondensa condenses correspondence from the same sender over time, and attaches a citation to every statement, verified by a guardrail before it is ever shown.

Criterion	Kondensa	Generic mailbox summary
Unit of condensation	Sender / entity / thread, over a chosen period	Inbox or single thread, at a point in time
Citation for every value	Yes — every figure, date or result links to its source email	Not publicly guaranteed
Anti-hallucination guardrail	Verified before display; blocked if a value cannot be found	Not documented
Local mode, no external dependency	Yes — installed mode, no inference leaves the site	No
Health-data readiness (GDPR/HDS, MSSanté)	Designed in from the start, founding scenario is a physician	Not targeted
Sending messages	No — Kondensa does not compose or send	Yes, native mailbox feature
Hosting	Client's choice — local, self-hosted or EU	The mailbox provider's own hosting

Comparison based on the publicly documented positioning of each tool category at time of publication. The precise features of third-party tools change without notice from their publisher; check the official documentation of the tool in question before any purchase decision.

Why grounding matters in healthcare and legal work

A summary that paraphrases without citing saves time on low-sensitivity text. It becomes risky the moment a value — an exam result, a dosage, an amount, a procedural date — must be carried over exactly. Kondensa favours verbatim extraction for this kind of data, and even its assisted mode is subject to the same grounding guardrail: both modes offer the same guarantee of accuracy, only reading comfort differs.

See the guardrail in detail