Tana
65
/100 Laddoo
FADING
Public-surface review of Tana
Proof depth—
Claim coverage—
Evidence count—
Momentum—
Updated2026-05-01
Tana vs Workflow Machine
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.
Workflow Machine
60
/100 Laddoo
FADING
Workflow Machine 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. Tana scored 65 (FADING); Workflow Machine scored 60 (FADING). Tana leads by 5 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.
Tana
pass
Homepage publicly accessible and value proposition clearly stated
Workflow Machine
pass
Homepage loads without login and value proposition is visible
Tana
unknown
Pricing page discoverable in 2 clicks from homepage
Workflow Machine
partial pass
Primary agent capability is stated in concrete, testable terms
Tana
unknown
Documentation or live demo accessible without login
Workflow Machine
pass
Pricing or free/trial path is publicly discoverable