Yuna vs Google Translate
Side-by-side comparison to help you choose.
| Feature | Yuna | Google Translate |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Product | Product |
| UnfragileRank | 27/100 | 30/100 |
| Adoption | 0 | 0 |
| Quality | 1 | 0 |
| Ecosystem | 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 12 decomposed | 8 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Delivers real-time cognitive behavioral therapy techniques through a dual-modal interface (voice transcription + text chat), processing user input through an unspecified LLM to generate contextually-aware therapeutic responses. The system maintains conversation state across sessions to reference prior mood patterns and therapeutic progress, enabling continuity without human therapist involvement. Responses are framed around CBT principles (thought-behavior-emotion linkage, cognitive restructuring) but implementation mechanism (prompt engineering vs. fine-tuning vs. structured outputs) is undocumented.
Unique: Combines voice + text dual-modal interface with claimed clinical expert involvement in system design, positioning as 'AI-native' mental health support rather than chatbot wrapper. Integrates mood tracking data into conversation context to reference historical patterns, though mechanism for feeding mood data into LLM context is undocumented.
vs alternatives: Eliminates EAP waitlists and scheduling friction that plague traditional therapy, and provides 24/7 availability vs. human therapist time constraints, but lacks clinical judgment and crisis intervention capability that human therapists provide.
Monitors conversation content in real-time to identify crisis indicators (suicidal ideation, severe self-harm, acute psychosis) and automatically triggers escalation workflows that surface crisis resources (hotline links, emergency contacts) to the user. Detection mechanism is undocumented but likely uses keyword matching, sentiment analysis, or LLM-based classification against a crisis taxonomy. Upon escalation trigger, system initiates proactive check-in messaging and routes alert data to HR dashboard (if deployed in enterprise context) while maintaining claimed privacy boundary that individual conversation content is not exposed to HR.
Unique: Implements real-time escalation detection as a core safety feature rather than post-hoc content moderation, with claimed privacy architecture that hides individual conversation content from HR while exposing escalation events. Combines crisis detection with proactive outreach (check-in messaging), suggesting stateful escalation workflows rather than simple alert-and-forget.
vs alternatives: Provides continuous crisis monitoring vs. traditional EAP models that rely on user self-reporting or manager referral, but lacks human clinical judgment and cannot intervene directly in acute crises like emergency services can.
Supports voice input (speech-to-text transcription) and voice output (text-to-speech synthesis) as alternatives to text chat, enabling hands-free conversational interaction. Voice interface is positioned as accessibility feature and natural interaction modality, but specific implementation details are undocumented: transcription service provider (Google, AWS, Azure, proprietary?), supported languages, accent handling, latency, and synthesis quality are all unknown. Voice capability is mentioned as core feature but lacks technical depth.
Unique: Integrates voice interface as core interaction modality alongside text chat, positioning as natural conversation alternative and accessibility feature. However, provides no transparency on transcription/synthesis providers, supported languages, or quality metrics.
vs alternatives: Provides voice accessibility vs. text-only mental health tools, but lacks documented transcription/synthesis quality and language support compared to voice-first platforms with published accuracy metrics.
Claims system is 'built by clinical experts' and uses 'evidence-backed' therapeutic techniques, suggesting involvement of mental health professionals in system design, content curation, and validation. However, specific clinical expertise (psychiatrists? psychologists? therapists?), involvement scope (design review? content creation? ongoing validation?), and evidence base (published research? clinical trials? expert consensus?) are entirely undocumented. This claim is positioned as differentiation but lacks verifiable substance.
Unique: Positions clinical expert involvement as core differentiator, claiming 'built by clinical experts' and 'evidence-backed' techniques, but provides zero transparency on expert credentials, involvement scope, or evidence base.
vs alternatives: Claims clinical credibility vs. purely AI-generated mental health tools, but lacks verifiable evidence (published research, clinical trials, expert credentials) compared to established mental health platforms with published clinical validation studies.
Collects structured user self-reports of mood (likely via Likert scale or similar) on a daily cadence, stores mood data points with timestamps, and aggregates historical patterns to feed into subsequent conversation context and HR analytics dashboards. The system uses mood data to personalize therapeutic responses (e.g., recognizing deteriorating trends) and to populate real-time HR dashboards with team-level well-being metrics ('no surveys required' implies sentiment extraction from conversations, though mechanism is undocumented). Mood data is claimed to be anonymized before HR exposure, but individual-to-aggregate mapping is not transparent.
Unique: Integrates mood tracking as a core data source for both personalized AI responses and HR analytics, with claimed privacy architecture that separates individual mood data from HR exposure. Positions mood tracking as 'no surveys required' by implying sentiment extraction from conversations, reducing user friction vs. explicit survey tools.
vs alternatives: Eliminates survey fatigue by embedding mood tracking into natural conversation flow vs. standalone survey tools (Qualtrics, SurveyMonkey), but lacks transparency on how mood data is aggregated and anonymized, creating privacy uncertainty vs. explicit survey tools with clear data handling.
Provides HR teams with real-time visualization of anonymized, aggregated well-being metrics derived from employee interactions with Yuna (usage frequency, engagement trends, team-level mood patterns, escalation event counts). The dashboard is designed to surface organizational mental health trends without exposing individual conversation content or identifiable user data, enabling HR to justify mental health benefit ROI and identify at-risk teams. Aggregation logic and anonymization methodology are undocumented; unclear how individual data is de-identified and whether re-identification is possible through trend analysis.
Unique: Positions HR dashboard as a privacy-preserving alternative to individual conversation monitoring, using aggregation to surface organizational trends while claiming to hide individual data. Integrates escalation event tracking into dashboard, enabling HR to monitor crisis response frequency without accessing conversation content.
vs alternatives: Provides real-time well-being insights vs. traditional EAP models that rely on post-hoc utilization reports, but lacks transparency on anonymization methodology and re-identification risk compared to explicit survey tools with published data handling policies.
Delivers structured coaching sessions focused on dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) skills (distress tolerance, emotion regulation, mindfulness, interpersonal effectiveness) through conversational interaction. Sessions are described as 'short' and 'evidence-backed' but implementation details are undocumented: unclear whether sessions follow a fixed curriculum, whether skills are sequenced based on user needs, or whether the LLM generates DBT content dynamically vs. retrieving from a curated skill library. Coaching is positioned as supplementary to CBT (primary modality) rather than a replacement for DBT therapy.
Unique: Integrates DBT skills coaching as a secondary modality alongside primary CBT focus, positioning as supplementary skill-building rather than full DBT therapy. Describes sessions as 'short' and 'evidence-backed' but provides no curriculum transparency, skill sequencing logic, or mastery assessment mechanism.
vs alternatives: Provides accessible DBT skill exposure vs. traditional DBT therapy (which requires 12+ months and trained therapist), but lacks the structured multi-modal treatment (individual therapy, skills group, phone coaching, therapist consultation team) that makes DBT effective for complex cases.
Claims to deliver conversational mental health support across 155 countries, implying multi-language capability, but specific supported languages are undocumented. Language support likely includes voice transcription, text chat, and response generation in multiple languages, but localization of CBT/DBT content, crisis resources, and therapeutic framing across cultural contexts is not mentioned. No information on language detection, fallback behavior for unsupported languages, or translation quality assurance.
Unique: Claims 155-country deployment with implied multi-language support, but provides no language list, localization strategy, or cultural adaptation details. Positioning as globally accessible mental health support is undermined by lack of transparency on language coverage and cultural appropriateness.
vs alternatives: Provides broader geographic accessibility than English-only mental health tools, but lacks documented language support and cultural adaptation compared to established international mental health platforms with published language lists and localization strategies.
+4 more capabilities
Translates written text input from one language to another using neural machine translation. Supports over 100 language pairs with context-aware processing for more natural output than statistical models.
Translates spoken language in real-time by capturing audio input and converting it to translated text or speech output. Enables live conversation between speakers of different languages.
Captures images using a device camera and translates visible text within the image to a target language. Useful for translating signs, menus, documents, and other printed or displayed text.
Translates entire documents by uploading files in various formats. Preserves original formatting and layout while translating content.
Automatically detects and translates web pages directly in the browser without requiring manual copy-paste. Provides seamless in-page translation with one-click activation.
Provides offline access to translation dictionaries for quick word and phrase lookups without requiring internet connection. Enables fast reference for individual terms.
Automatically detects the source language of input text and translates it to a target language without requiring manual language selection. Handles mixed-language content.
Google Translate scores higher at 30/100 vs Yuna at 27/100. Yuna leads on quality, while Google Translate is stronger on ecosystem.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Converts text written in non-Latin scripts (e.g., Arabic, Chinese, Cyrillic) into Latin characters while also providing translation. Useful for reading unfamiliar writing systems.