Algomo vs Sierra

Both build agents that take real action. The difference: Sierra sends engineers, Algomo sends an agent that finds your APIs and connects itself.

Comparison

	Algomo	Sierra
How it connects to your systems	Discovers the endpoints behind your own pages, then uses them. Private systems are wired in with our help.	Built per customer by their deployment engineers.
Before you sign anything	A working agent on your own site that you can use.	A sales process, then an implementation.
Where it runs	Your site (in the visitor's own session), plus the channels you switch on.	Server side.
How you change what it does	Tell it, in plain language. It can write itself a new tool.	Through their tooling and their team.
Also available over MCP	Everything.	Not the configuration surface.

Sierra's own hiring shows the model: engineers who build each customer's agent. That works, and you pay for it. Algomo automates that step.

You get the agent running on your site, then decide. No contract or scoping call required.

The agent acts in the visitor's session: their prices, availability and region, even on sites that block server-side traffic.

Large enterprise deployments with a procurement process that expects a named delivery team.
SMS and WhatsApp programmes, and phone-first deployments at enterprise scale.
Organisations that want a vendor to own the build rather than run it themselves.

Is Algomo just a cheaper Sierra?

It is a different mechanism. The agent does the integration work rather than a team doing it for you.

Can it handle things behind a login?

Yes, those are connected with us rather than discovered.

What if our site changes?

It notices, rescans and rebuilds the part that broke.

Get a working agent on your own site and judge it against your shortlist. Or read Why Algomo and the other comparisons.