Tamats vs ChatGPT and other general AI assistants

The tool most cosmetic teams actually use for regulatory questions today — and the one that quietly produces the most expensive mistakes.

Where they differ

Where the answer comes from: TamatsA compiled corpus of regulations and retailer standards, each entry carrying the primary source it was compiled from. Findings are computed by an ingredient matcher, not written as prose.; a general AI assistantModel memory, sometimes plus a live web search. Concentration limits and annex entries get recalled confidently and can be years out of date.
What happens when it does not know: TamatsIt abstains. No retrieved source means it says so and stops; an unmatched ingredient returns “review”, never a pass.; a general AI assistantIt answers anyway. Fluency is constant whether or not the underlying fact is real.
What you keep: TamatsFormulations are versioned objects, compliance runs are records, and the citation stays attached.; a general AI assistantA chat log.
Scope: TamatsCosmetics only.; a general AI assistantEverything, which is exactly why it is the better tool for the other 90% of your week.

Choose a general AI assistant when

You are drafting copy, summarising a document, writing code, or thinking out loud — a general assistant is better at all of it.
The question is not one where being confidently wrong costs you a reformulation or a delisting.

Choose Tamats when

The answer is going to end up on a label, in a retailer submission, or in front of a safety assessor.
You need to show where a limit came from, not just what it is.

Settle it without a demo

Paste your INCI list into the free compliance scan and read the citations yourself — no account, no key. Then compare it to whatever the other tool tells you.