Home/Compare/vs Adept

rpa-automate vs Adept.
Production agents shipping today vs computer-use research.

Adept (adept.ai) built ACT — a model designed for computer-use agents that operate UIs the way humans do. Foundational research, enterprise-deployed. rpa-automate is a production agent platform shipping four agents (recruiter, AP, inbox, voice) on Claude with outcome pricing. We're solving adjacent problems. Here's how they line up.

See if we're right for you →Pricing
Pick Adept if
  • — Your workflow is locked to a UI that has no API and won't get one
  • — You're enterprise and ready for a research-grade computer-use deployment
  • — You can wait for a custom integration cycle (weeks to months)
  • — You need an agent that operates a screen the way a human would
  • — You have an internal AI team that can co-build with a research partner
Pick rpa-automate if
  • — Your workflows touch APIs or things with APIs (Gmail, QuickBooks, LinkedIn, CRM)
  • — You want production agents in 5 days, not a research engagement
  • — You want outcome pricing — $25/intro, $0.50/invoice, $8/lead
  • — You need hash-chained audit logs for EU AI Act compliance now
  • — Recruiting, AP, inbox triage, or voice is one of your top 3 priorities
  • — You're 10-500 employees, not a research-funded enterprise

Feature-by-feature

Featurerpa-automateAdept
ApproachTool-use agents on ClaudeComputer-use model (ACT)
Best forAPI-accessible workflowsUI-only workflows without APIs
Time to production5 days managedWeeks to months (custom)
Pricing modelPer outcomeEnterprise contract
Foundation modelClaude (Sonnet + Haiku + Opus)ACT (proprietary)
Pre-built agentsRecruiter, AP, inbox, voiceCustom-built
Hash-chained auditBuilt-inEnterprise-tier
Self-serveYes — outcome planNo — enterprise sales
Tool-use protocolMCP (open standard)Proprietary
Maintenance modelManaged by usCo-built or self-managed
Multilingual supportEN, AR, HI, PT, ES, FREnglish-focused
Best buyerFounder, COO, CFO, Head of TalentCIO, Head of AI
01 · APPROACH

API-accessible vs UI-only — different problems.

Adept's ACT model operates computer interfaces the way a human would — clicking buttons, filling forms, navigating screens. That's the right tool for workflows locked to legacy software with no API: certain enterprise procurement systems, niche healthcare or government UIs, screen-only ERPs.

Our agents use tool calls (MCP) against APIs. Faster, cheaper, more reliable when an API exists. Most modern SaaS has an API; most of the workflows our customers want to automate are accessible that way. We don't try to solve the UI-only problem.

02 · MARKET

Research-enterprise vs SMB-to-mid-market production.

Adept's deployment model is enterprise — research-grade engagement, custom build, deep partner integration. The buyer is usually CIO or Head of AI at a large organization with a specific UI-locked automation problem and budget for a research-style partnership.

We're positioned for the 10-500 person company that needs production agents in days, not a research engagement. Founder, COO, CFO, Head of Talent. $0 outcome pricing instead of enterprise commit.

03 · DURABILITY

MCP is the bet that's aging well.

Model Context Protocol is becoming the standard for agent-to-tool communication — Anthropic-led, now adopted across the AI ecosystem. Our agents are MCP-native, which means new tools become agent capabilities without bespoke integration.

Computer-use agents like ACT solve a different category of problem (UI-only workflows), but for the >90% of modern automation that touches APIs, MCP + tool-use is the durable architecture. We're betting on it. So is most of the agentic ecosystem.

FAQ

Can rpa-automate operate legacy UIs without APIs?

Not natively. Our agents use MCP tool calls against APIs. For UI-only workflows, partner solutions like Adept (ACT) or Anthropic's computer-use Claude are stronger. We can wrap a computer-use agent into our orchestration layer for hybrid cases — ask during the audit.

What about Anthropic's computer-use Claude — do you use it?

Yes, where it makes sense. Anthropic's computer-use mode is part of the Claude API and we use it for the small fraction of workflows that need UI automation. Most of our production agents stick to tool-use against APIs because it's faster, cheaper, and more reliable.

Is Adept still independent after the Amazon talent acquisition?

Reports in 2024 indicated significant team movement to Amazon. Their commercial product trajectory has been less public since. We compare against the published positioning of ACT — your eval should include current company state.

How do I decide?

If your top workflow is locked to a UI that has no API and won't get one, evaluate Adept (or Anthropic's computer-use Claude). If your top workflows are API-accessible (Gmail, QuickBooks, LinkedIn, CRM, etc.) and you want production in 5 days with outcome pricing, evaluate us. There's not much overlap in practice.

Want an honest second opinion?

Our 3-minute audit asks 6 questions about your current process, calculates monthly cost, and recommends the right model — including Adept if that's the honest answer.

Take the audit →