Honest comparison
CrocoBrain vs ChatGPT memory
Memory makes a general assistant more convenient: it remembers facts about you across conversations. CrocoBrain's claim is different — your knowledge should live in a structure you can open, read, audit and export, not in a memory you have to trust.
We compare models and design choices, not feature checklists. Other tools evolve; if something here is out of date, tell us and we will correct it.
A wiki you can open, not a memory you must trust
Assistant memory accumulates whatever the model decides is worth keeping, and you mostly see it through its effects. CrocoBrain keeps your knowledge in explicit wiki notes — typed, linked, statused — that you can read and correct at any moment.
Answers with receipts
Every CrocoBrain answer cites the wiki note it draws on, and every note traces to your raw sources. When the brain has nothing sourced to say, it says so instead of improvising.
It argues back
A general assistant optimizes for being helpful and agreeable in the moment. CrocoBrain treats the disagreements inside your own corpus as its most valuable signal: it surfaces them and records your arbitration, instead of papering over them.
Your schema, your export
CrocoBrain generates a personal schema from your corpus during a calibration interview — your categories, not a generic bucket — and the whole vault exports as plain Obsidian-compatible Markdown whenever you want.
Which one is for you?
Keep a general assistant for general tasks — memory makes it smoother. For the corpus that IS your work, where every claim needs a source and the structure itself is the asset, that is what CrocoBrain is for.