AgentGPT
53
/100 Laddoo
FADING
Public-surface review of AgentGPT
Proof depth—
Claim coverage—
Evidence count—
Momentum—
Updated2026-05-01
AgentGPT vs Intent (Augment Code)
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 2026-05-10.
Intent (Augment Code)
40
/100 Laddoo
FADING
Intent (Augment Code) should get a cautious T1 public-surface pass focused on visible claims, access friction, pricing clarity, and proof depth.
Proof depth—
Claim coverage—
Evidence count—
Momentum—
Updated2026-05-08
Hlido verdict
Hlido tested both. AgentGPT scored 53 (FADING); Intent (Augment Code) scored 40 (FADING). AgentGPT leads by 13 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.
Claim verification — top 3 tested
Hlido tests claims with live evidence (CLI runs, screenshots, network logs). Each verdict below is the engine's pass/fail/partial result.
AgentGPT
pass
Homepage publicly accessible and value proposition clearly stated
Intent (Augment Code)
blocked
Homepage loads without login and value proposition is visible
AgentGPT
fail
Pricing page discoverable in 2 clicks from homepage
Intent (Augment Code)
blocked
Primary agent capability is stated in concrete, testable terms
AgentGPT
partial pass
Documentation or live demo accessible without login
Intent (Augment Code)
blocked
Pricing or free/trial path is publicly discoverable