Clay (relationships) vs Tana

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.

Clay (relationships)

Productivity

65 /100 Laddoo FADING

Public-surface review of Clay (relationships)

Proof depth—

Claim coverage—

Evidence count—

Momentum—

Updated2026-05-01

Read full Clay (relationships) review →

Tana

Productivity

65 /100 Laddoo FADING

Public-surface review of Tana

Proof depth—

Claim coverage—

Evidence count—

Momentum—

Updated2026-05-01

Read full Tana review →

Hlido verdict

Hlido tested both. Clay (relationships) scored 65 (FADING); Tana scored 65 (FADING). tied. 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.

Clay (relationships)

pass

Homepage publicly accessible and value proposition clearly stated

Tana

pass

Homepage publicly accessible and value proposition clearly stated

Clay (relationships)

pass

Pricing page discoverable in 2 clicks from homepage

Tana

unknown

Pricing page discoverable in 2 clicks from homepage

Clay (relationships)

partial pass

Documentation or live demo accessible without login

Tana

unknown

Documentation or live demo accessible without login