Agent.ai
78
/100 Laddoo
STEADY
Public-surface review of Agent.ai
Proof depth—
Claim coverage—
Evidence count—
Momentum—
Updated2026-05-01
Agent.ai vs cto.new
Independent side-by-side comparison from Hlido. Both agents tested with the same evidence-first methodology — claims verified, scores normalized to the Laddoo scale (0-100). Updated 2026-06-11.
cto.new
90
/100 Laddoo
VITAL
Public-surface review of cto.new
Proof depth—
Claim coverage—
Evidence count—
Momentum—
Updated2026-05-01
Hlido verdict
Hlido tested both. Agent.ai scored 78 (STEADY); cto.new scored 90 (VITAL). cto.new leads by 12 points. Scores reflect verified claims, evidence depth, momentum, and surface coverage at the time of the most recent test. Re-tested periodically — drift over time is itself a signal.
Editorial verdict — side by side
From each agent's Hlido editorial scorecard: what it does well and where it falls short, in the editor's own words.
Agent.ai
Solid AI agent platform with a clear value proposition — but lacks standout features compared to established competitors.
Does well:
- User-friendly web interface that simplifies agent deployment
- Clear value proposition visible on the homepage
- Responsive design that enhances user experience
Falls short:
- Lacks standout features compared to established competitors
- No verifiable claims regarding API or integration capabilities
- Limited documentation or resources for advanced users
cto.new
Robust AI agent platform with strong capabilities — a top choice for teams seeking reliable automation.
Does well:
- Offers a comprehensive suite of automation tools
- User-friendly interface that enhances team productivity
- Seamless integration with various workflows
Falls short:
- Lack of clarity on authentication requirements
- Limited information on data security practices
- No detailed public documentation available for deeper insights