These two overlap more than any other pair on this site. Both give you free Stockfish analysis, a report across your game history, a short daily plan, a training record, drills built from your own mistakes and a coaching layer on top. The difference is depth and audience: Chessigma describes Supercoach as built for the under-1400 wall, and ChessLogix is built for players who want to inspect the evidence behind every conclusion their coach reaches.
Free learning platform No card required · Chess.com and Lichess
A beginner-first coach has to decide things for you, because presenting five competing metrics to someone who is still hanging pieces is how they stop opening the app. That is a correct design choice for the audience Chessigma names, and it is why Supercoach arrives as scores, categories and a to-do list. ChessLogix is designed for the stage after that — where you can already tell a bad move from a bad plan, and the useful question is no longer “what is wrong with my chess” but “show me the numbers that made you say so”. Beginners can use it, and the analysis is not flattened into badges to make them comfortable.
The first five rows are close to a tie, and that is the honest shape of this comparison. The separation opens at the daily plan, widens from the row about evidence onward, and closes again at Bot Challenge.
| Capability | ChessLogix | Chessigma |
|---|---|---|
| Unlimited browser Stockfish analysis | Yes, running on your own machine. | Yes — Supercoach is built on top of a free analysis engine. |
| Multi-game performance report | Yes, across everything you have imported. | Yes, over your recent games. |
| Coach layer and daily habit | Yes: a daily session, a season with points, and a training record that counts the weeks you actually trained rather than consecutive days — two rest days never cost you anything. | Yes: Coach Froggy, a daily to-do list and a chat you can ask about your games. |
| Training built from your own mistakes | Yes — puzzles rebuilt from the positions where your evaluation actually turned. | Yes — Blunder Fix drills your worst move from a real game the next morning. |
| Timed drilling | Pattern Speed runs a session against a clock at Fast, Normal, Slow or a custom setting. | Woodpecker repeats the same puzzles over three rounds, faster each pass. |
| Short daily plan | About ten minutes by default, and adjustable — you set the session length and mix. | A fifteen-item daily to-do list, aimed at about fifteen minutes a day. |
| Evidence behind a finding | Frequency, median cost in win probability, recent trend, spread across openings and colors, a confidence label, and the positions it was drawn from. | Strategic DNA categories with performance statistics and scores. |
| Cause separated from symptom | Trigger, habit, consequence and final symptom are reported as a chain, and training is aimed at the trigger rather than at the collapse four moves later. | Drills are built around the blunder itself. |
| Testing on unfamiliar positions | After the position you missed, a different board that asks for the same decision. | Not prominently documented. |
| Exact opening-branch diagnosis | Opening Check names the branch where your score separates, with the move that cost the most. | Preparation depth and losing lines are reported within the Strategic DNA breakdown. |
| Practical versus objective opening moves | Human results at your rating band and the engine evaluation shown separately, never merged. | Primarily trainer recommendations. |
| Tactical skill diagnosis | Skill Compass isolates individual motifs and reports the rating you solve each one at with no help. | Find rates by motif inside the Tactics section. |
| Improvement measurement | Targeted: is this branch scoring better, is this motif found more often, does the trained mistake appear less in new games, are first attempts improving rather than repeats? | Win rate, average centipawn loss and an Elo trend, tracked over recent sessions. |
| Continuing a winning position against a bot | Not offered. | Bot Challenge picks the game back up at the exact move, same clock, bot at your level. |
| Who it is built for | Ambitious intermediate players who want to audit the coach. Beginners are welcome; the analysis is not simplified for them. | Explicitly the under-1400 wall, and designed around that. |
| What the personalized coaching costs | Free: analysis, recurring-mistake reports, Opening Lab, puzzles, Skill Compass and progress tracking. Two AI features are an optional $14.99 monthly membership. | A free analysis engine, with Supercoach as the paid layer on top. |
Chessigma’s strongest unique exercise is Bot Challenge: you return to a winning position you previously failed to convert and try to finish it against a level-appropriate bot on the same clock. ChessLogix concedes that row outright, because it is genuinely useful and there is nothing here that does the same job.
Free browser analysis, a report over your recent games, a short daily plan, a coach you can talk to, a training record, timed drills, exercises rebuilt from your own blunders. Both products have all of it, and any comparison page that pretends otherwise is selling rather than comparing.
Chessigma also does things ChessLogix does not. Bot Challenge is the clearest — returning to a position you were winning and being made to convert it, on the same clock, against a bot at your level, is a good exercise and an obvious one in hindsight. Its Strategic DNA breakdown across blunders, discipline, tactics, conversion and preparation is a readable summary of a player, and the time-pressure reporting inside it is sharp.
The separation is in what happens after a conclusion is reached. Chessigma tells you what to do about it. ChessLogix also shows you the working, and the four sections below are the specific places that matters.
A score tells you where you rank. It does not tell you whether to believe it. Every ChessLogix finding carries the count it was computed from, what it typically cost, whether it is getting worse, how far it spreads, how confident the conclusion is, and the games behind it.
The final blunder is rarely the real problem. A position usually becomes tactically unstable several moves before anything hangs, and drilling the move where it collapsed trains the wrong instant. ChessLogix reports the chain and aims the training at the start of it.
Replaying a mistake verifies memory of that mistake. Solving an unfamiliar position that asks for the same decision is what tells you the idea survived. ChessLogix uses both, in that order, and reports them separately.
Rebuilt from your own game at the move before the evaluation turned, with the line you played and the one the engine wanted. This is the part every mistake-drilling product has, and it is the easy half.
Then a different position, chosen because it invites the same candidate moves. Getting the first one right after three attempts proves you remember a game. Getting the second one right proves something about your chess.
A repeated drill you finally solve on the fourth try and a position you solved cold are not the same evidence, so they are not counted as the same thing. First-attempt results are what the progress report leans on.
A separate diagnostic that narrows in on individual tactical patterns and reports the rating you solve each one at with no hints — so “tactics” stops being one number and becomes eight, weakest first.
Win rate, average centipawn loss and an Elo trend are useful vital signs, and Chessigma reports them well. What they cannot tell you is which thing improved. These are the questions ChessLogix is built to answer instead.
Is this opening, or this specific branch, scoring better than it was? Are you reaching playable middlegames more often from it? Is a motif that used to be your weakest being found more reliably now? Does the mistake you have been training appear less often in the games you have played since?
And the quiet one that decides whether any of the others mean anything: are your first attempts improving, or only your repeats? A drill you eventually get right after four tries has taught you that drill. It has not yet told you anything about the next unfamiliar position.
None of these are answerable from a rating graph or an average centipawn loss line. They are answerable from a coach that stored what it claimed, and then took the same measurement again.
None of this is an argument against motivation. ChessLogix has a daily session, a season with points, timed pattern runs, and drills that come back until they hold. Training you skip has an effectiveness of zero, and the products that build around that are right to. The one gamification pattern deliberately left out is the consecutive-day streak: a counter that can only ever be lost is one of the most reliable ways to make someone stop opening a training app, so the record here counts the weeks you actually trained.
The difference is what the motivation layer sits on. Here it is an interface over a performance model, not a substitute for one: every score leads back to a game, a position, a decision or a measurable skill, and nothing stops you opening the games and statistics underneath it.
Chessigma makes daily chess training approachable, and for a player at the under-1400 wall that is the correct priority. ChessLogix keeps training engaging without turning your chess into a toy.
Import a batch of games free and read the ranked list that comes back, each finding with the numbers that produced it. If you disagree with the top item, the positions behind it are one click away — which is the entire point.
Build My Free Training PlanChessigma makes daily chess training approachable. ChessLogix turns it into a performance system. Which is better depends entirely on which of those you need right now.
Everything said here about another product comes from that product's own public documentation, read on the date above — not from hands-on use of its paid tiers. Features change. If something here is out of date, tell us and we will fix it.
Pick Chessigma if you are under 1400 and want a playful daily coach that decides everything for you. Coach Froggy, a fifteen-item daily to-do list, Blunder Fix, Blunder Shield and Woodpecker are a genuinely good on-ramp — and Bot Challenge, which drops you back into a winning position you failed to convert, with the same clock and a bot at your level, is an exercise ChessLogix has no equivalent for. Its own page names players stuck under 1400 as the audience it was built for, and it serves them well.
No, but it is not simplified for one either. A beginner gets the same full single-game analysis, the same puzzles from their own games and the same daily session. What they also get is the evidence layer — counts, costs, confidence labels — which a player still learning basic tactics may not need yet. If you want a coach that hides all of that and hands you a fifteen-item list, Chessigma is designed for exactly that and does it well.
Chessigma runs a free analysis engine with Supercoach as the paid layer on top, so the personalized coaching is the thing you pay for. ChessLogix keeps the personalized platform free with no time limit — import, engine analysis, recurring-mistake reports, Opening Lab, puzzles from your own games, Skill Compass and progress tracking. The only paid features are the two that call a language model on every use: AI Move Explanation and Meta-Coach, at $14.99 a month. Charging for those is what keeps the rest free.
It is an adaptive diagnostic rather than a tally of what you have already solved. It narrows in on individual tactical patterns and reports the rating you solve each one at with no hints at all, along with how many positions that reading is based on — and a motif nobody has tested you on is shown as untested rather than as an empty bar. The result is an ordered list of eight motifs, weakest first, which is what the next sessions work down.
No. Returning to a winning position you failed to convert and finishing it against a bot at your level, on the same clock, is a good exercise and ChessLogix has no equivalent. The nearest thing here is different in kind: the conversion failures are detected, counted and priced across your history, and the training that follows is position-solving rather than playing the rest of the game out.
It tells you rather than making you guess. Each finding carries how many opportunities it was computed from and a confidence label, so a pattern drawn from eight decisions is not presented like one drawn from eighty. One game gives you a complete single-game analysis immediately; twenty is a good first batch for the cross-game picture, and the confidence labels move as more games arrive.
Import from Chess.com or Lichess and read the ranked list that comes back — each finding with how often the decision came up, what it typically cost, whether it is getting worse, how confident the finding is, and the positions behind it. The learning platform is free and no card is required.
