Cal.com AI Agents 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.

Cal.com AI Agents

AI Agent

78 /100 Laddoo STEADY

Public-surface review of Cal.com AI Agents

Proof depth—

Claim coverage—

Evidence count—

Momentum—

Updated2026-05-01

Read full Cal.com AI Agents review →

cto.new

AI Agent

90 /100 Laddoo VITAL

Public-surface review of cto.new

Proof depth—

Claim coverage—

Evidence count—

Momentum—

Updated2026-05-01

Read full cto.new review →

Hlido verdict

Hlido tested both. Cal.com AI Agents 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.

Cal.com AI Agents

Solid AI agent platform with a user-friendly interface — effective for scheduling but lacks advanced customization options.

Does well:

User-friendly interface that simplifies appointment scheduling
Reliable core functionality for managing appointments
Accessible for non-technical users

Falls short:

Limited customization options for advanced users
Lacks detailed use cases in documentation
Does not support complex scheduling scenarios out of the box

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