Compared by Tree Identifier's makers

Pl@ntNet vs PictureThis

One is a free citizen-science project run by French research institutes; the other is a paid plant-care app that topped the main published tree test. Here is how to choose.

Written by the makers of Tree Identifier, which appears here only as a third option. We compared what Pl@ntNet and PictureThis document on their own App Store listings, websites and help pages; we did not use or lab-test either app. How we compared · Where the other app is the better pick

Illustration of two herbarium sheets, a pressed wildflower with its leaf, flower and seed head on one and a monstera leaf with a watering can on the other, with a hand lens between them — Illustration (AI-generated, for orientation only)

In short

Pl@ntNet vs PictureThis is free science versus paid convenience. Pl@ntNet costs nothing, lists no in-app purchases, has a website and a downloadable offline model, and lets you send several photos tagged by plant part. PictureThis sells a Pro subscription ($3.99 to $49.99 on its US listing, 2026-10-21), adds care reminders and expert chat, and scored higher in a 2022 Rutgers test of 55 tree species.

Disclosure: we make Tree Identifier, a third option covered in its own marked section. Facts come from each app's own listing, website and docs, checked 2026-10-21. We did not use or lab-test either app.
Pick Pl@ntNet for free, open data, the web and identification without signal; pick PictureThis for houseplant care, diagnosis and the higher published test scores.
On trees, both apps did far better with leaf photos than with bark photos in the Rutgers test.

Pl@ntNet and PictureThis are the two plant identifiers people most often weigh against each other, and they come from opposite directions. Pl@ntNet is a free citizen-science project whose trademark belongs to four French research institutes (CIRAD, INRAE, Inria and IRD). PictureThis is a commercial plant-care app sold by Glority Global Group. We make a third app, Tree Identifier, so we put it in its own marked section at the end and kept it out of the verdicts.

Pick by situation

Pick Pl@ntNet if…

You want to pay nothing, ever. Its US App Store listing shows it as Free with no in-app purchases (checked 2026-10-21).
You are often without signal. Pl@ntNet's offline mode is "an optimized and compressed version" of its model, available only on the mobile app, after you create an account and download it. Its docs say offline results are less current than online ones and suggest re-running them online later.
You switch between phone and computer. The web version at identify.plantnet.org runs in a browser, and the app is also on Android.
You want your sightings to count for science. Shared observations are reviewed by other users, and validated ones feed open databases such as GBIF, per Pl@ntNet's own docs.
You photograph wild plants more than houseplants. Its listing says it "can also identify a large number of cultivated plants (in parks and gardens) but this is not its primary purpose."

Pick PictureThis if…

You look after houseplants or a garden. Its US listing adds disease diagnosis with treatment plans, watering reminders, a light meter, weed identification and toxic-plant warnings.
You want a person to answer questions. The listing offers 24/7 chat with plant experts.
You want the app with the higher published scores. It came first of six apps in the Rutgers tree study and first of nine in a University of Maryland Extension test (details below).
Several people at home will use it. Its in-app purchases include a Family Plan at $49.99 (US listing, 2026-10-21).

Either one is fine if…

You only want a quick name for a tree on a walk, you are online, and you will check the answer against the leaves, buds and fruit yourself. Both are free to download; try the same photo in both before deciding.

Where the other app is the better pick

Both apps beat Tree Identifier on things that matter. Pl@ntNet is free with no in-app purchases on its US listing, runs on iPhone, Android and the web, can identify without a connection once its offline model is downloaded, and accepts several photos of one plant tagged by organ; Tree Identifier needs a connection and takes one photo. PictureThis runs on iPhone, Android and the web, offers 24/7 chat with human plant experts, and was the top performer of six apps in the 2022 Rutgers study of 55 tree species; Tree Identifier has no independent test at all.

Facts checked October 21, 2026

Side by side

Facts from each app's US App Store listing and website, checked 2026-10-21. "Not documented" means the pages we read say nothing, not that the feature is missing.

	Pl@ntNet	PictureThis
Listing name and seller	PlantNet, CIRAD (French research centre)	PictureThis - Plant Identifier, Glority Global Group Ltd.
Price on the US listing	Free, no in-app purchases	Free to download; in-app purchases $3.99 to $49.99
Devices	iPhone and iPad (iOS 15.1+), Android, web	iPhone and iPad (iOS 15.0+), Android, web upload
Photos per identification	One or more, tagged by plant part	Not documented on the pages we read
Without a connection	Yes, after downloading the offline model (account needed)	Not documented on the pages we read
Account	Needed to contribute and for offline mode	Not documented on the pages we read
Human help	Community review of shared observations	24/7 chat with plant experts
Care and health tools	None listed	Diagnosis, reminders, light meter, weed and toxic-plant ID
Species count, their own words	"about 20,000 species" (listing); "approximately 70,000 species" (docs)	"over 400,000 plant species" (listing)
US ratings	7,049, average 4.59	1,120,486, average 4.8, Editors' Choice

Ratings are the US App Store counts on 2026-10-21. They measure how many people rated each app, not how well it names trees.

How we compared

We make Tree Identifier, so read this as a comparison by an interested party, even though our app is not one of the two. Everything about Pl@ntNet and PictureThis comes from their own US App Store listings (description, In-App Purchases, privacy label, compatibility), Pl@ntNet's documentation and PictureThis's website, read on 2026-10-21. We did not use either app for this page. For accuracy we cite only published third-party tests, never an app's claim about itself: PictureThis's listing quotes its own accuracy figure, which we don't repeat. Where a page says nothing, we write "not documented", which is not the same as "no".

What the published tests found

Trees. In the Rutgers study published by the International Society of Arboriculture in 2022, the authors photographed four leaves and four bark surfaces of 55 New Jersey tree species in July 2020 and ran them through six apps. PictureThis came first and iNaturalist second. The labelled chart on the team's Rutgers poster gives the share of photos named at least to the right genus:

PictureThis: 97.27% of leaf photos, 65.45% of bark photos, 81.36% combined.
Pl@ntNet: 85.45% of leaf photos, 34.55% of bark photos, 60.00% combined, fourth of six on the combined score.

Both apps did far worse on bark, and species-level results were lower than genus-level ones for every app. The authors' conclusion applies to both: use these apps to narrow the field, not to replace checking the tree yourself. More on what these numbers mean is in how accurate tree identification apps are.

Other plants. In a University of Maryland Extension test (updated November 2025) of nine apps on 90 photos of 30 pasture and hayfield plants, PictureThis named 94% correctly on its first suggestion and Pl@ntNet 66%. Those were weeds and grasses in a vegetative state, not trees.

Price and what you get free

Pl@ntNet is free. Its US listing shows no in-app purchases, and its docs describe it as "free and open to all". The only thing behind an account is contributing observations and downloading the offline model.

PictureThis is free to download. On 2026-10-21 its US listing's In-App Purchases row showed ten entries: PictureThis Pro at $39.99 (seven of them), $7.99 and $3.99, and a PictureThis Family Plan at $49.99. The listing's terms mention a free trial "if offered" without giving its length, and they don't say which billing period each price covers; the purchase screen inside the app does. Neither the listing nor the website spells out exactly what the free version includes.

Privacy labels on the App Store

Apple's privacy label is the developer's own declaration. On 2026-10-21:

Pl@ntNet declares no data used to track you. Data linked to you: location, contact info and user content (your photos and observations).
PictureThis declares purchases, identifiers and usage data as used to track you across other companies' apps and websites, and lists purchases, contact info, user content, search history, identifiers, usage data and diagnostics as linked to you.

If tracking matters to you, this is the clearest difference between the two.

A third option: Tree Identifier (ours)

This section is about our own app, so weigh it accordingly. Tree Identifier, listed as Tree Identifier AI: ID Trees, is an iPhone app built around trees. One photo of a leaf, the bark, a flower, fruit or the whole tree returns the common and scientific names, origin, growing conditions and key traits, and you can keep asking questions in a follow-up chat under the result. Finds fill a 138-species tree Collection and, with location allowed, a Tree Map. It is free to download with optional in-app purchases (Tree Identifier Pro, $2.99 to $19.99 on its US listing, 2026-10-21), and needs no account.

Its gaps against both apps above: it is iPhone only (it runs on iPad in iPhone layout), it needs an internet connection for every identification, it takes one photo at a time, and it shows no confidence score and no list of other candidate species. It has no published independent test. If those gaps matter, stay with Pl@ntNet or PictureThis. For more choices, see Pl@ntNet alternatives and the best tree identification apps, grouped by situation.

What a photo can't settle

The only published tree test of both apps used versions from 2020; both apps have been updated many times since, so the gap may have changed in either direction.

Questions people ask

Is Pl@ntNet better than PictureThis?

Not in the published tests: PictureThis scored higher on 55 tree species (Rutgers, 2020 app versions) and on pasture plants (University of Maryland Extension, 2025). Pl@ntNet is better on cost, openness and offline use: it is free, lists no in-app purchases, has a website, and can identify without a connection after a download.

Is Pl@ntNet really free?

Its US App Store listing shows it as Free with no in-app purchases (checked 2026-10-21), and its documentation calls it free and open to all. An account is needed to contribute observations and to download the offline model, but not to pay anything.

Does PictureThis work without internet?

PictureThis does not document offline identification on the listing and website pages we read, so we can't say either way. Pl@ntNet documents an offline mode on its mobile app, after you sign in and download the model.

Which is better for trees?

In the Rutgers test of 55 New Jersey tree species, PictureThis named the genus from 97.27% of leaf photos and Pl@ntNet from 85.45%; from bark, 65.45% against 34.55%. Those are 2020 versions of both apps. Either way, photograph the leaves first and use bark as a second check.

Can I use both apps on the same photo?

Yes. Both are free to download. Running one photo through two apps is a quick check: if both agree on the genus, that is a good sign; if they disagree, look at leaf arrangement, buds and fruit yourself before trusting either name.

Sources

PlantNet (US App Store listing) — Apple App Store (seller: CTRE COOP INTERNAT RECHERCHE AGRO DEV)
PictureThis - Plant Identifier (US App Store listing) — Apple App Store (seller: Glority Global Group Ltd.)
Install the offline (embedded) mode — Pl@ntNet documentation
Pl@ntNet's strengths and weaknesses — Pl@ntNet documentation
An Analysis of the Accuracy of Photo-Based Plant Identification Applications on Fifty-Five Tree Species (Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 48(1): 27–43, 2022) — International Society of Arboriculture (Schmidt, Casario, Zipse and Grabosky, Rutgers University)
The Accuracy of Photo-Based Plant Identification Apps on Northeastern Trees (poster) — Rutgers University, Urban Forestry
Snap It or Scrap It: Putting Plant ID Apps to the Test — University of Maryland Extension (Amanda Grev)