Agently vs Craft Agents

Agently and Craft Agents are both ai agent apps 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.

Agently

Agently connects to 100+ tools via OAuth and builds a live graph of your company's activity, then runs a set of specialized agents — Researcher, Revenue, Growth, Support, Ops, Briefer — coordinated by an orchestrator called Jarvis. Agents post Slack threads, recover failed Stripe charges, flag renewal risks, and ship formatted documents without waiting for a prompt. The output is artifacts — sheets, docs, decks, gated pages — not chat transcripts. The ceiling appears when you need conditional branching that goes beyond the predefined agent roles; the vendor describes no mechanism for custom agent logic or self-hosted deployment. Teams with non-standard workflows will feel the constraint.

Craft Agents

Built by the craft.do team for their own internal agent work, Craft Agents connects to external services like Slack or Linear, imports skills from Claude Code, and runs local MCP servers as subprocesses — all without requiring CLI fluency from the people reviewing agent output. The document-based interface lets you run multiple agents in parallel and share sessions, which removes the 'only the dev knows what happened' problem. Where it strains: the GitHub issues tracker shows 311 open issues and 146 open pull requests, signaling a project moving fast with rough edges still exposed. Teams expecting enterprise-grade stability at scale will feel those gaps quickly.

Attribute	Agently	Craft Agents
Pricing	Paid	Free
Price	$69/mo	—
Free trial	No	No
Open source	No	Yes
Has API	No	No
Self-hosted option	No	Yes
Platforms	Web	Desktop
Pros	Two-way OAuth integrations across 100+ tools with live sync, so agents act on current data rather than stale snapshots that make automated decisions unreliable. Outputs land as real files — docs, sheets, decks, gated pages, CSV exports — which means the agent's work is immediately usable rather than requiring a human to translate a chat response into an action. Jarvis orchestrates multiple specialized agents in parallel, so a single trigger (a failed Stripe charge, a renewal risk flag) can simultaneously update HubSpot, send a Gmail sequence, and post to Slack without manual handoffs. Live activity board shows every task in triggered, running, and shipped states, so you have an audit trail of what ran and when — without that, debugging an automated sequence that misfired requires guesswork. Predefined agent roles (Revenue, Support, Growth, Ops, Briefer, Researcher) cover the recurring work that consumes the most meeting time at early-stage teams, so setup targets high-frequency pain rather than requiring teams to design workflows from scratch.	Document-centric session sharing, so the agent's context and output are readable by non-technical stakeholders without anyone translating terminal state into prose. MCP server subprocess management built in, which means you skip the manual local-server-startup ritual that breaks agent demos the moment someone else tries to run the same workflow. API integration via pasted specs or URLs, so connecting an agent to a custom internal service doesn't require writing a connector from scratch or waiting on a native integration. Claude Code skill import, which means agent capabilities your team already defined elsewhere carry over without being rebuilt inside a new system. Parallel agent multitasking in a single workspace, so a team running several concurrent agent tasks isn't forced to context-switch between separate sessions or terminals.
Cons	The agent roles are predefined and the vendor describes no mechanism for custom agent logic — teams whose workflows involve branching based on domain-specific rules (e.g., different recovery sequences per customer segment) hit this ceiling immediately and have no documented workaround short of manual intervention. No self-hosted option exists, and there is no free tier — teams in regulated industries or with data residency requirements cannot evaluate or deploy this tool, and will move to a competitor that supports on-premises deployment. The orchestration model is opaque: the vendor shows a live activity board but does not describe how to inspect or override a Jarvis decision mid-run, which means when an agent takes the wrong action on a live customer record, the recovery path is unclear and potentially damaging.	The public repository carries 311 open issues and 146 open pull requests — at the scale of a production deployment handling critical workflows, that backlog means bugs you hit may sit unresolved while your team decides whether to patch upstream or work around them. No API surface is exposed by the tool itself, so teams that want to trigger agents or read results from an external orchestration system have no stable interface to call — they are working against source code, not a contract, which breaks when the internals change. A team that needs commercial support, audit logging, or guaranteed uptime SLAs will find none of those here; when production pressure mounts, the next step is a hosted agent platform with managed infrastructure and a support tier — at which point the migration cost is the sunk cost of everything built on Craft Agents.

Bottom line

Agently is paid while Craft Agents is free; Craft Agents is open source. Choose based on which difference matters most for your workflow.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between Agently and Craft Agents?

Agently is Paid, while Craft Agents is Free and open source. Compare pricing, free trial, API, platforms, and pros/cons in the table above on AIDiveForge.

Is Agently better than Craft Agents?

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.