AI climbing feedback: Cima vs Cruxie vs Obstacle IQ

Turn an attempt into a useful replay

Climbing video can show a hesitation, a loose hip or a foot adjustment that was difficult to notice on the wall. Cima, Cruxie and Obstacle IQ turn that footage into different forms of feedback. The useful distinction is whether you want a continuing training log, a timeline of a difficult sequence, or broader attempt-based coaching across climbing and obstacle sports.

Cima

Cima combines video feedback with session logging, projects and training records. A climbing clip receives pose tracking, a movement breakdown and coaching notes. The report separates technique, efficiency, power and confidence, giving the climber several ways to describe what happened rather than only a single overall score.

Its surrounding workflow is particularly relevant to repeated attempts. Projects collect climbs and attempts, while guided finger-training tools record work away from the wall. Apple Watch support adds session and training controls, including logging attempts without reaching for the phone. The current site also describes optional read-only connections for reviewing stored climbing context through an assistant.

Cima fits a boulderer who already films sessions and wants the analysis to remain connected to training history. Free and Pro differ chiefly in the monthly video allowance. The current homepage describes Android as an open test, so iPhone availability should not be generalized into an identical release state on every platform.

Cruxie

Cruxie focuses on identifying the point where an indoor bouldering attempt becomes less effective. It applies pose estimation to the recording, plots a score along the timeline and marks sections where that score drops. Synchronized charts and playback help a climber revisit the same transition instead of searching through the whole clip.

The scoring model uses five named axes: support and stability, smoothness, technique variety, center-of-gravity position and center-of-gravity drive. Overlays and saved history provide ways to compare attempts and see which part of the model changed. These are Cruxie's own training measures, not a universal climbing grade or proof that another app's score is wrong.

Uploads are limited to two minutes, and the published scope is indoor bouldering. Android is available; repeated homepage notices say iOS is coming soon, despite a generic FAQ listing iPhone requirements. Cruxie is consequently the more focused option for an Android boulderer seeking a short, timeline-based review.

Obstacle IQ

Obstacle IQ evaluates bouldering and route attempts within a broader coaching service for obstacle athletes. Its climbing page names footwork precision, body tension, hip positioning and movement flow, including hesitation and regripping. The report connects observations with coaching recommendations and personalized training suggestions.

The wider scope is useful for someone who also trains Ninja, parkour or obstacle-course racing. A climbing attempt and a wall run can remain within one service rather than requiring a separate tool for each discipline. That breadth should not be read as evidence that every obstacle has the same analysis model or that a general score is a route grade.

History and progress features support repeated review, and the site advertises phone and web uploads plus iPhone and Android access. Pro's unlimited analysis is explicitly subject to fair use. Its one-time Lifetime Starter offer also retains a monthly analysis limit, which matters for climbers filming many attempts in a single session.

What each report helps you notice

Cima emphasizes an interpretable report connected to projects and training. Cruxie emphasizes the time within the attempt where its movement model deteriorates. Obstacle IQ emphasizes coaching observations about footwork, tension and flow, followed by training suggestions. For someone asking why a particular move repeatedly fails, Cruxie's timeline is the most directly framed feature.

For someone asking how several sessions relate, Cima's wider logging structure is more relevant. Obstacle IQ appeals when the next training session also includes non-climbing obstacles. The product scores serve those different workflows and should not be compared as if they share one calibrated scale.

Bouldering specialization and wider training

Cruxie's current scope is indoor bouldering, making it the narrowest product here. Cima combines climbing feedback with finger training and attempt tracking. Obstacle IQ explicitly includes route attempts and broader obstacle disciplines, although its climbing feedback remains educational training guidance.

The difference matters before uploading a session: a short boulder, a route and a multi-obstacle line are different inputs. Cima's session tools can organize work between climbs; Cruxie's two-minute limit encourages a compact attempt; Obstacle IQ offers a common service for an athlete crossing disciplines. None of these capabilities establishes belay or climbing safety assessment.

Allowances and purchase terms

Cima provides three analyses each month on Free and thirty on Pro. Cruxie offers three introductory analyses, with paid monthly allowances and prices shown in the app. Obstacle IQ offers one initial analysis, then limited Starter or fair-use Pro options. A signup allowance and a recurring monthly allowance are different benefits.

Obstacle IQ's Lifetime Starter is also limited to ten analyses per calendar month. Cima and Obstacle IQ publish annual options, while Cruxie's reviewed terms describe monthly renewal without a verified public numeric price. The table records those distinctions rather than treating an unlimited headline as unrestricted processing.

Which should you choose?

Choose Cima when filming, projects and training records should work together. Choose Cruxie when a bouldering attempt needs a clear crux marker and synchronized replay. Choose Obstacle IQ when climbing is one part of a broader obstacle-training routine. Pick by the feedback you will revisit, rather than the largest score.