Adjuro vs Platinum

Adjuro and Platinum are both business tracked by AIDiveForge. Below is a side-by-side comparison of pricing, capabilities, platforms, and ownership — sourced from each tool's live website and verified before publishing.

Adjuro

The vendor describes an API service that issues cryptographically signed consent receipts at the moment an outbound AI voice call is authorized, creating a tamper-evident record tied to that specific interaction. Legal teams get exportable evidence packets formatted for discovery, without having to reverse-engineer call logs or depose platform engineers. The records are designed for third-party verification without granting platform access — which matters when opposing counsel demands proof and you cannot hand over your production environment. The ceiling appears when your compliance posture requires self-hosted data residency; the vendor states no self-hosted deployment option exists. Teams with data sovereignty mandates will need to resolve that before signing a contract.

Platinum

Platinum.ai generates an llms.txt profile for your business: a machine-readable file, formatted to the open llms.txt standard, that sits on your domain and hands agents your services, pricing, hours, and policies in under 600 tokens instead of requiring a full page scrape. The vendor states profiles are built using over 150 industry-specific blueprints, so the fields agents look for when evaluating a dental clinic differ from those for a law firm. You upload one file — no code changes, no redesign, no plugin. The ceiling appears quickly: this is a static document, so anything that changes on your site requires a manual update or a return purchase. Teams with fast-moving pricing or rotating service lines will find the file stale within weeks.

Attribute	Adjuro	Platinum
Pricing	Paid	Paid
Price	—	From $99 one-time
Free trial	No	No
Open source	No	No
Has API	Yes	No
Self-hosted option	No	No
Platforms	Cloud API (SaaS); vendor-agnostic; integrates with any outbound voice platform	—
Pros	Signed receipts are issued at call time via API, so consent is documented at the moment it exists — not reconstructed from logs after a lawsuit is filed, which is the record opposing counsel attacks first. Evidence packets are pre-formatted for discovery, which means legal teams avoid the deposition risk of having a platform engineer explain how the export was assembled. Third-party verification works without granting platform access, so opposing counsel can confirm record authenticity without your production environment becoming part of discovery. Usage-based pricing per call and evidence export, so compliance costs scale with actual campaign volume rather than requiring a flat infrastructure commitment before you know litigation exposure. API-first design, so the receipt-issuance step integrates directly into the call authorization path of an existing AI voice platform without requiring a separate compliance workflow.	Delivers a machine-readable llms.txt file in the open standard format agents already look for, which means agents retrieving your domain get structured facts in under 600 tokens rather than burning budget on a JavaScript-heavy scrape that may still return wrong data. Over 150 industry-specific blueprints shape which facts get prioritized, so a dental clinic's profile surfaces credentialing and insurance fields that a generic summary would omit — the data agents actually weight when comparing providers in that category. One-time delivery with no plugin installation or site redesign required, which means your existing site architecture is untouched and there is no recurring dependency to manage or cancel. Puts your business in control of the facts agents cite about you, replacing the current default — scraped directories, cached reviews, outdated listings — with a source you authored and can correct.
Cons	No self-hosted deployment option exists — consent records are stored in the vendor's infrastructure. Teams subject to data residency mandates or requiring on-premises control of legally sensitive records hit this wall at contract review, not after integration, and the next step is building internal cryptographic signing infrastructure. The scraped page content does not match the described tool — the validator flagged this as an API service for consent receipts, but the source page returned content for an unrelated mobile app. Teams evaluating this tool cannot independently verify API documentation, integration specs, or uptime commitments from the public-facing page, which means due diligence requires direct vendor engagement before any architecture decisions. A team running campaigns across jurisdictions with consent requirements that exceed TCPA — GDPR, for example, or state-level equivalents — will find that the tool's described scope is TCPA-specific. Expanding compliance coverage to those regimes requires either additional tooling or confirming with the vendor that the receipt schema maps to those standards.	The profile is a static file with no automated sync to your live site — the moment your pricing, hours, or services change, agents reading your llms.txt will retrieve stale facts, recreating the misinformation problem the service is sold to prevent. Teams with any price volatility will need to repurchase or manually maintain the file. There is no API, no CMS integration, and no described webhook or trigger mechanism, which means businesses that update offerings frequently have no path to keeping the file current short of manual intervention every time something changes. Because the output is a text file with no performance tracking, there is no signal telling you whether agents are actually reading it, which queries it is answering, or whether it is affecting how often your business appears in agent-driven comparisons — teams that need attribution data will find nothing here and move to structured schema implementations with analytics hooks instead.

Bottom line

Only Adjuro exposes a public API. Choose based on which difference matters most for your workflow.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between Adjuro and Platinum?

Adjuro is Paid, while Platinum is Paid. Compare pricing, free trial, API, platforms, and pros/cons in the table above on AIDiveForge.

Is Adjuro better than Platinum?

It depends on your workflow. Use the side-by-side attributes (pricing, open source, API, self-hosted, platforms) to decide. AIDiveForge does not rank a universal winner — we publish verified facts so you can choose.