AI & Travel Tech Editor
Riccardo P.
AI travel-tech specialist. Tests AI itinerary tools against each other, writes the comparison reviews, and covers the tools-and-tech side of trip planning.
About Riccardo
Riccardo covers the AI side of travel — which tools work, which ones hallucinate, what the difference is between asking ChatGPT to plan a trip and using software actually built for it. He has a software-engineering background (six years at travel-adjacent startups in Berlin and Amsterdam) and approaches AI itinerary tools the way you'd approach any other software: test it, break it, write down what failed.
His comparison reviews are based on identical test prompts run against multiple tools, with the same fact-check pass on every output. He's not anti-ChatGPT — he uses it daily — but he's clear-eyed about where it breaks down for trip planning. He travels mostly to test things: a tool that promises good Tokyo recommendations gets tested in Tokyo, not in his living room.
Areas of expertise
Posts by Riccardo
AI Trip Planner Accuracy: Real 2026 Edit-Rate Data
We measured how often travelers correct AI-planned trips: 67% of itineraries get zero edit requests, the rest need a median of 2. What people fix most, and how AI trip planning is improving in 2026.
How Many Activities Per Day in an Itinerary? Data Says 4
Analysis of 6,915 activities from 273 real itineraries: 4 activities per day, ~2 hours each, a third of them food. The data-backed anatomy of a day that works — and the mistakes that break it.
Plan a Group Trip by Voting — No More Group-Chat Chaos
Stop planning trips in the group chat. Share one itinerary link, let everyone vote on activities without creating an account, and let the plan take shape by itself. Here's how voting-first planning works.
Travel Moods 2026: What People Actually Want From Trips
Data from 261 real trip plans: 74% pick culture, 57% pick food — and only 22% pick relaxation. What travelers actually select when planning a 2026 trip, and what it means for yours.
Group Travel Statistics 2026: 69% Plan Trips Together
Real 2026 data: 69% of trips are planned with other people, not solo. Group travel statistics from 1,651 planning sessions — group vs solo splits, favorite group destinations, and why group chats kill trips.
How Long Should a Trip Be? Data From 1,651 Real Trips
The median trip in 2026 is 6 days, and 46% of trips run 4–7 days. Real planning data on how long your trip should be — by destination type, group size, and what you actually want from it.
Q3 2026 Travel Report: 1,651 Real Trip Plans Analyzed
Fresh data from 1,651 real trip-planning sessions in summer 2026: Tokyo stays the most-planned city, the median trip is 6 days, and 69% of travelers plan with a group. See the full breakdown.
Layla AI Review 2026: Pricing + Best Free Alternatives
Is Layla AI worth $49/year? We compared the free tier and premium. Here's what Layla does well, what the paywall covers, and the best free alternatives that give you the full day-by-day itinerary.
Mindtrip Review 2026: Pricing, Features + Best Alternatives
Is Mindtrip really free? We tested it in 2026. Here's what Mindtrip does best, its limits (English-only, no group voting), and the best alternatives for group trips and travelers who plan in Spanish, Italian, or Portuguese.
2026 Travel Planning Report: 1.1M Searches Analyzed
What 1.1 million travel searches and thousands of real itineraries reveal about how people plan trips in 2026 — the rise of AI-first, free-first planning, weather and passport anxiety, and the one-week multi-city trip.
Wanderlog Alternative 2026: Best Free AI Trip Planner
Wanderlog gates its AI behind a $39.99/year Pro plan. Here's the honest breakdown of Wanderlog free vs Pro — and the best free, AI-first alternative that plans your whole trip in 30 seconds, no signup.
Wonderplan Review 2026: Free AI Trip Planner Tested
Is Wonderplan any good? We tested the free AI trip planner in 2026. Here's what it does well, where it feels like a template generator, and the best free alternatives with real personalization and group planning.