Algomo vs Decagon
Decagon assigns people to each deployment. Algomo automates the step those people perform.
Comparison
| Algomo | Decagon | |
|---|---|---|
| Who does the integration | The agent, from your own endpoints | Their deployment team, per account |
| How you get started | A URL | A sales and onboarding process |
| Changing behaviour later | Say what you want, including new capabilities | Through their tooling and their team |
| Where it runs | Your site (in the visitor's own session), plus the channels you switch on | Server side |
How you get started
A URL is genuinely the whole ask. Give the agent your address and it discovers the endpoints behind your own pages, builds its tools from them, and connects itself. Then you brief it in your own words. It is live in minutes, and the integration step is the part it automates.
The deployment step is the product difference
Decagon solves the integration step with people, Algomo with discovery. Neither is free, but only one scales down to a business that cannot fund a staffed rollout.
Proof before commitment
The agent runs on your site, against your own endpoints, before any sales conversation.
Where Decagon is the better choice
- You want a named team accountable for the build and the outcome.
- Your requirements are unusual enough that a person should be designing them.
FAQ
Do we need a deployment team?
No. The integration step is the part the agent automates.
Can we see it on our own site first?
Yes. A working agent runs on your own site before any sales conversation.
What about systems the agent cannot discover?
Anything behind a login, such as internal systems, is connected with us.