cto.new
90
/100 Laddoo
VITAL
Public-surface review of cto.new
Proof depth—
Claim coverage—
Evidence count—
Momentum—
Updated2026-05-01
cto.new vs happycapy
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 2026-07-13.
happycapy
90
/100 Laddoo
VITAL
Proof depth—
Claim coverage—
Evidence count—
Momentum—
Updated2026-05-01
Hlido verdict
Hlido tested both. cto.new scored 90 (VITAL); happycapy scored 90 (VITAL). 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.
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.
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
happycapy
Promising browser-native AI agent with strong launch momentum, but access barriers limit immediate utility.
Does well:
- Strong initial traction with 926 upvotes on Product Hunt
- Browser-native design reduces setup friction for users
- Recognized as a runner-up for AI Product of the Year, indicating industry credibility
Falls short:
- Requires login for all meaningful functionality, limiting immediate user engagement
- Free tier access to core features is limited, making it hard to verify claims
- Sandbox environment is behind an authentication wall, restricting evaluation