Avery.Software vs Adept - when each one is right
· Avery NXR
Adept has been one of the most-watched AI companies in the agent category. Founded by ex-Google research veterans, focused on training foundation models that can use software the way humans do. Their ACT-1 and subsequent models have been referenced heavily in agent research.
We get the comparison from research-informed buyers who've read about Adept's work. Here's the honest take.
What Adept is
Adept builds foundation models + agent systems for enterprise workflow automation. Research-driven approach. Their agents learn to use software applications the way humans use them.
What Adept does well:
→ Foundation model research depth. Legitimate AI research organization, not just an application layer → Agents that use existing software. Rather than requiring new integrations, agents learn to click through existing apps → Enterprise workflow focus. Automating processes that span multiple applications → Strong technical team. Deep AI research talent → Cloud-hosted platform for enterprise customers
For enterprises wanting agents that navigate existing software (like a human would), Adept's approach is genuinely different.
What Avery.Software is
Avery NXR is a local-first AI agent platform. Different technical approach than Adept.
Key differences:
→ Adept builds foundation models for agents. Avery uses existing foundation models (via Ollama locally + optional cloud escalation). → Adept trains agents to USE software UIs. Avery uses API/connector integrations. → Adept is cloud-hosted. Avery is local-first. → Adept targets enterprise transformation. Avery targets operational teams.
The technical approach difference
Adept's bet: agents should use software the way humans do — clicking through UIs, filling forms, navigating apps.
Advantages of Adept's approach: → Works with software that doesn't have APIs → Handles legacy systems + custom internal tools → Doesn't require pre-built integrations → Adapts to UI changes automatically (in theory)
Avery's bet: agents should use APIs and connectors — structured, reliable, faster.
Advantages of our approach: → Faster execution (API calls > UI clicks) → More reliable (APIs have defined contracts) → Auditable (each API call logged with structured data) → Better for structured business workflows
Different bets. Both legitimate.
When Adept is the right pick
→ You need agents that work with software that DOESN'T have good APIs → Legacy internal systems are core to your workflows → You have enterprise budget for their platform → You want research-grade foundation models specifically → You're comfortable with cloud-hosted approach → Your use case is enterprise process automation
For enterprises with heavy legacy software + no API alternatives, Adept's approach might fit.
When Avery.Software is the right pick
→ Your workflows involve systems that have APIs (most modern SaaS) → You want faster execution + more reliability → Local-first execution matters → Non-engineers building agents → You're smaller-to-mid-market (not enterprise transformation) → Cost predictability matters
For most modern operational workflows with API-accessible tools, Avery fits.
The API vs UI question
Most modern SaaS tools (HubSpot, Salesforce, Gmail, Slack, QuickBooks, Notion, Linear, etc.) have APIs.
Some legacy internal tools, older enterprise systems, or heavily customized apps don't have good APIs. For these, UI-navigating agents like Adept can access them where API-based agents can't.
The question: how much of your workflow depends on API-less systems?
If it's a small percentage: use API-based platforms (Avery, most alternatives). If it's a large percentage: UI-navigating agents (Adept, browser automation platforms) fit better.
Pricing comparison
Adept:
Enterprise pricing, not publicly listed. Based on public references + AI industry norms for research-grade platforms, expect enterprise contracts with substantial pricing.
Avery.Software:
Free Desktop: $0 Pro: $29/user/month flat Enterprise: custom
Different market segments. Direct pricing comparison isn't very useful.
The reliability trade-off
UI-navigating agents (Adept's approach) face reliability challenges:
→ UIs change without notice — agents break → UI interactions are inherently slower than API calls → Screenshots + OCR for UI navigation add latency + error potential → Debugging UI-navigating agents is harder than debugging API-based ones
API-based agents (our approach) have their own challenges:
→ Requires target systems to have good APIs → Doesn't handle systems without programmatic access → Integration coverage limited to what connectors exist
Different failure modes. Both approaches have real trade-offs.
The research vs product question
Adept's positioning has emphasized research depth + foundation model capabilities.
Avery's positioning emphasizes shipped product + operational reliability.
Both are legitimate positions. They optimize for different things.
If you want to work with a research-heavy platform building novel capabilities: Adept might be interesting.
If you want a production-ready platform focused on shipping operational value: Avery.
When you might use both
Uncommon but possible:
→ Adept for workflows involving legacy systems without APIs. Their UI-navigation approach unlocks systems API-based platforms can't reach. → Avery for workflows involving modern SaaS with APIs. Our API-based approach is faster + more reliable for these.
Different tools for different technical realities.
What Adept does that Avery doesn't
→ UI-navigation of existing software → Handles systems without APIs → Foundation model research depth → Adapts to legacy enterprise environments
What Avery does that Adept doesn't
→ Local-first execution → Faster + more reliable execution (API-based) → No-code accessible (non-engineer buildable) → Broad connector library (63+ modern SaaS integrations) → Deterministic graph compilation → Flat per-user pricing
The bigger picture
Adept has been building interesting research + products in a challenging technical direction. UI-navigating agents are genuinely hard, and their approach has research depth.
Avery is building in a different direction — API-based operational agents with local-first architecture. Different bet.
Both bets can succeed. They serve different technical realities.
For most modern SaaS-centric workflows: API-based platforms (Avery, others) fit better. For legacy-heavy enterprise environments with API-less systems: Adept's approach might fit.
Match technical reality to platform approach.
→ avery.software — Free Desktop tier. For API-based operational agents on modern SaaS stacks. Use Adept for UI-navigating enterprise legacy environments.