Duck.ai
Free, account-free chatbot interface that anonymizes requests to a changing set of model providers.
Score calculation
(2 + 9 + 3 + 1 + 7) ÷ 5 = 4.4
5 of six dimensions rated. Unrated dimensions are excluded from the average.
Full scoring method ↗Setup details
Duck.ai consumer chat, default mode; optional feedback, Sync & Backup, uploads, and provider exceptions are separate.
What fits your needs
Hosted chat interface; provider and optional feature selection affect data flow.
Easy access
Duck.ai is free, optional, and requires no account for its basic chat interface.
See the evidence
Tradeoffs to expect
Changing upstreams
Available models and stated exceptions vary by provider; file moderation and feedback have separate handling.
See the evidence
How to switch
Try a normal task
Open Duck.ai without an account and choose a model listed in its current interface.
Practical questions
Read provider exceptions
Before using files or voice, review the provider-specific retention exceptions and moderation disclosure.
See the evidence
For the Duck.ai default consumer chat route; the selected upstream model/provider can vary boundary, public documentation establishes the service or route but not its request-level physical footprint. The reviewed Duck.ai sources describe privacy routing and model-provider choices, but don’t confirm a user-facing task budget or measured resource savings. Electricity sourcing is not mapped to this route.
See the evidence
This practices/transparency assessment covers the Duck.ai default consumer chat route; the selected upstream model/provider can vary boundary. The sources establish how the service or endpoint is exposed and don’t confirm a documented resource-saving control; they do not give a measured per-request energy, emissions or water value. The disclosure point reflects the stated operating boundary, not a product footprint, and company-wide electricity reporting is not attributed to this route.
1 + 1 reporting + 0 electricity + 0 controls = 2/10. This grades documented practices and transparency.
The reviewed sources don’t confirm request-level electricity, emissions or water; the actual serving facility and its power mix are also not mapped to Duck.ai default consumer chat route; the selected upstream model/provider can vary.
- Reporting1/3
- The reviewed documentation defines the Duck.ai default consumer chat route; the selected upstream model/provider can vary boundary. It gives an operating-scope description, not a dated quantitative energy, carbon or water report for this route.
- Electricity sourcing0/3
- No reviewed source maps Duck.ai default consumer chat route; the selected upstream model/provider can vary to a disclosed electricity mix or time-and-location-matched clean-power supply. The route's actual electricity use and emissions therefore remain unestablished.
- Resource controls0/3
- The reviewed Duck.ai sources describe privacy routing and model-provider choices, but don’t show a user-facing task budget or measured resource savings.
Water disclosure
Water reporting has not been assessed for this choice.
Duck.ai can route to multiple model providers, so training data permission depends on the selected model and its release; its no-training promise concerns submitted chats.
See the evidence
Duck.ai documents that providers agree not to use conversations for training. That protects prompt data under the listed route but doesn’t confirm the rights or provenance of any provider model’s original training data.
Exact model selection, release version, source inventory, permissions, post-training data, and creator-remedy scope remain unresolved.
DuckDuckGo says chats are not stored by default or used for model training, removes identifying metadata before routing, and binds provider retention/training terms with documented exceptions.
See the evidence
Duck.ai publishes service-specific behavior rather than relying only on a general company privacy statement: default chat logging is off, request metadata is stripped before provider handoff, and providers agree to delete prompt/response content after generating a reply and not train on it, subject to stated exceptions.
No numerical score assigned because the reviewed evidence doesn’t confirm the route-specific controls needed for one.
Feedback, Sync & Backup, voice/file moderation, and provider-specific exceptions change the scope; consult the current per-provider table.
Duck.ai is a hosted interface that routes to listed proprietary and open models; its interface and routing are not a self-hostable model runtime.
See the evidence
The official AI service documentation describes a hosted interface and multiple upstream models. That makes the service easy to access but does not expose its routing stack for self-hosting; model openness varies by selected upstream.
The score reflects service-level inspectability and control, not usefulness or model quality.
Model list and provider selection change; inspect the chosen model’s own license separately.
Company-level worker conditions and supply-chain safeguards are not assessed from product terms alone.
See the evidence
The reviewed product material describes access and features but doesn’t show labor conditions for the company’s model-development, data-labeling, moderation, or infrastructure workforce. This is an evidence boundary, not a claim about worker treatment.
1 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 1/10. Documented worker protections; missing disclosure is an evidence gap.
Current worker conditions, voice, grievance outcomes, contractor scope, and independent assurance were not established in these product sources.
- Pay & conditions0/3
- No qualifying worker-conditions disclosure was found in the reviewed product sources; this is a limited evidence gap.
- Worker voice & remedy0/3
- No worker-voice or grievance outcome evidence was found in the reviewed product sources.
- Evidence & follow-through0/3
- No independent worker-safeguard audit was found in the reviewed product sources.
No military or intelligence relationship is established by the reviewed product sources.
See the evidence
The official sources reviewed define product behavior and service terms but do not identify a military contract, deployment, or military-specific restriction for Duck Duck Go, Inc.. This is “not established” within this source set, not evidence that no relationship exists.
7 base + 0 safeguard adjustment = 7/10 (0 of 9 safeguard points; every 3 adds 1). No military relationship was established in the cited sources. This ranks above known defense ties without claiming a verified clean record.
Undisclosed contracts, downstream hosting, customer deployment, end-use, and enforcement are outside the reviewed product sources.
- Use restrictions0/4
- No product-specific military-use restriction was identified in the reviewed materials.
- Enforcement & oversight0/3
- No military-specific enforcement or oversight mechanism was identified in the reviewed materials.
- Relationship disclosure0/2
- The product sources provide no military customer or deployment disclosure.
No company military relationship was established in the reviewed product sources; the source set is not a customer-complete investigation.
Military rubric ↗DuckDuckGo, Inc. (Duck.ai) was not named in the BNC consumer-target guide or its No Tech target list when. This status covers those named lists only.
See the evidence
I checked the BNC consumer-boycott and pressure guide and the No Tech target list for DuckDuckGo, Inc. (Duck.ai). The company was not named in either list on 2026-10-24; this does not assess unrelated suppliers, customers, investors, or every BNC publication.
The result is limited to the two linked BNC target lists as; additions or other BNC publications may change the assessment.