Autoheal vs Lunen.ai

Autoheal and Lunen.ai 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.

Autoheal

AI platform leveraging a Production Context Graph to automate alert triage, root cause investigation, and incident remediation for enterprise SRE teams.

Lunen.ai

A subject-matter expert describes what they want in plain language; Lunen drafts a structured execution plan with named tools, scoped data, and a schedule — no canvas, no YAML. Every MCP tool connection becomes a per-tool policy decision: allow it to run unattended, or pause for a human sign-off before each call. User actions and agent actions land in the same audit log, which means security reviews have a single trail to pull. The ceiling appears when teams need conditional branching between agent steps — the plain-language plan model does not surface that logic visibly, so complex multi-step dependencies require workarounds the interface does not directly support.

Attribute	Autoheal	Lunen.ai
Pricing	Paid	Paid
Free trial	No	No
Open source	No	No
Has API	Yes	No
Self-hosted option	Yes	Yes
Platforms	SaaS (cloud hosted and BYOC airgapped deployment options)	Cloud
Released	2026-03	2026
Pros	Consolidates on-call management, incident response, and AI investigation into a single platform, reducing tool sprawl Production Context Graph learns from organizational context and decision history, improving accuracy over time Adversarial agent verification eliminates hallucinated root causes through evidence-backed confidence scoring Enterprise-grade security with BYOC, airgapped deployment, SOC 2/ISO 27001, fine-grained governance, and immutable audit trails Decision traces create institutional memory so insights from each incident inform future investigations	Plain-language agent creation produces a structured execution plan without drag-and-drop builders or YAML, so non-technical staff can define agents that IT can actually review and approve rather than shadow-deploying on personal accounts. Per-tool allow/approve toggles apply to every agent and every ad-hoc run from a single policy screen, which means a CRM write permission cannot accidentally slip through on a one-off run that bypasses the standing policy. User actions and agent actions land in the same audit log with full input visibility per event, so compliance teams pull a single trail instead of reconciling agent logs against user logs during a review. MCP server support means the policy and audit framework extends to any tool with an MCP integration, not just the named connectors — reducing the risk that a new integration creates an ungoverned side channel. BYOC deployment keeps production data inside the organization's own infrastructure, which means data residency requirements do not force a choice between governance tooling and compliance posture.
Cons	Pricing not publicly disclosed; requires sales engagement for quotes, which may create friction for smaller organizations Enterprise-only positioning may limit accessibility for startups or teams with constrained budgets Requires integration with existing observability and on-call tools; success depends on quality of knowledge base and runbook metadata	The plain-language plan model has no visible mechanism for conditional branching between steps — if an agent needs to take different paths depending on what a prior step returned, the interface gives no way to express or inspect that logic, and teams handling multi-step decision trees will route around Lunen with external orchestration, reintroducing the two-system problem. There is no free tier; access is gated behind a paid plan or an enterprise contact-sales path, which means teams that want to evaluate the governance model against a real production workflow before committing budget have no low-friction entry point — the evaluation friction alone pushes some teams toward open-source alternatives where they can self-host and test without a contract. The tool set is limited to named connectors plus MCP servers; organizations running internal tooling without MCP support face a build-your-own integration problem that sits outside the governed plane Lunen provides, leaving those tool calls unlogged and unapproved.

Bottom line

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

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between Autoheal and Lunen.ai?

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

Is Autoheal better than Lunen.ai?

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.