Consider a hypothetical services company handing a new customer from sales to delivery. The signed contract is in Google Drive. Sales promises are scattered across Slack. The CRM handoff is incomplete. An employee asks AI for an account summary and gets one within seconds. Three days later, the delivery owner is still unconfirmed, the promised dates disagree, and nobody has scheduled the kickoff.
Delivery needs an owner, confirmed dates, and kickoff tasks in the applications the team already uses. Someone also has to update the agent when the company introduces a new service or changes the handoff process. That continuing work is part of the purchase.
Glean brings company knowledge, an assistant, and agents into a shared employee experience. Relevance AI gives teams a platform for building and adapting agents. Coryntas builds and manages agents that use business information and connected systems to carry work through. Their capabilities overlap; the complete offer determines who implements and maintains the work after launch.
Which one should you shortlist?
Choose Coryntas when you want agents built and managed for your business. The agents use company information, policies, and connected tools to help employees, serve customers, and carry out operational work. Coryntas handles implementation and continuing agent management, so the customer can use the agents without assigning its own team to build and maintain them.
Choose Glean when employees need a shared workplace AI product. Its enterprise search, assistant, and agents give employees a common environment for finding information, answering questions, and taking follow-up actions. A broad rollout earns its cost when people across the company use that environment regularly.
Choose Relevance AI when your team wants to build and adapt agents directly. Its agent platform supports visual and natural-language creation. Staff or an implementation partner can configure the tools and workflows. Direct access to the builder matters when a team wants to implement frequent changes itself.
Glean agents can execute actions, and Relevance AI partners can help with implementation. Coryntas combines the agents with their development and continuing management. Compare that complete purchase, including whoever will investigate failed requests and update behavior when applications or business rules change.
| Buying question | Glean | Relevance AI | Coryntas |
|---|---|---|---|
| Main purchase | Workplace search, an assistant, and agents | A platform for building and coordinating agents | Business agents with development and continuing management |
| How work gets done | Answers and agents using connected actions | Configured tools and agent workflows | Agents using business records, policies, and tools to investigate requests and carry out actions |
| Implementation | Source setup, rollout, and agent configuration; assistance depends on the offer | Customer or partner configuration, with contracted implementation help | Design, integrations, testing, training, and production deployment included in the deployment package |
| Continuing maintenance | Assign the workflow owner alongside product support | Customer team or an operating partner | Coryntas supports and improves deployed agents under its continuing development terms |
| Billing | User licenses and pooled FlexCredits | Subscription, Actions, and Vendor Credits | One-time deployment and monthly capacity shared across the workspace |
Coryntas deployment starts at $5,000, with monthly Core capacity at $500. The pricing section below explains the included first usage period, continuing development terms, and capacity estimate.
What the customer stories tell you
The published deployments show different uses of these products. They also measure different outcomes, so the figures need to be read alongside the work each customer put into production.
In Glean's Zillow case study, Glean reports 80% adoption across 7,000 employees and more than 1.5 hours of weekly search time saved per employee. The account covers information access and employee-created agents. For a company considering thousands of licenses, recurring employee use is central to the business case.
Relevance AI's Qualified case study reports more than 35 agents, $7 million in pipeline over six months, and $500,000 in closed revenue. Pipeline measures opportunities; closed revenue measures converted business. Implementation, review, and maintenance costs also matter when translating a sales result into a purchasing budget.
At OptyxStack, two Coryntas production agents organize business information and answer employee questions about systems and customer data. Coryntas reports an 80% reduction in the work required to organize and store business data for that deployment. OptyxStack's own account describes the information-organization and employee-support responsibilities.
For a global VPS provider, Coryntas deployed seven agents across infrastructure serving approximately 100,000 VPS. Across the supported recurring workflows, the provider estimates that agents handle up to 95% of task volume previously performed manually by staff. The deployment includes technical diagnosis, provisioning and migrations, billing, customer service, and sales. Coryntas also reports a 56% relative increase in the reactivation rate among customers inactive for more than a year, compared with the previous baseline. The customer's identity is withheld.
These stories can help identify a relevant implementation to examine. Adoption, pipeline, data-organization effort, and manual task coverage cannot be ranked on one scale. A reference conversation about the most recent failed request or business-rule change adds something the headline figure does not: who fixed it, how long it took, and how much customer staff time it required.
Glean: company knowledge across teams
Glean deserves a close look when employees repeatedly ask where a decision was recorded, which document is current, or who handled a similar customer problem. A sales representative may need account history while an engineer needs an earlier implementation decision. Both can use the same search and assistant product, with different records and permissions.
Its agent product adds creation, orchestration, a library, and monitoring. For the hypothetical handoff, the account brief and follow-up actions can be evaluated separately. Delivery needs the correct information and the corresponding records in its applications.
Source preparation still affects the rollout. An obsolete answer may come from an old document; an incomplete answer may come from restricted access or missed information. Those problems call for different repairs by the content owner, administrator, or agent maintainer. A pilot with several employee groups shows which preparation is needed before licensing a wider population.
Glean pricing: licenses and variable consumption
Enterprise Flex pricing combines per-user monthly licensing with an organization-wide pool of FlexCredits. Fast Mode assistant use is included; advanced capabilities and agent runs consume credits under the published rules.
The rate card gives approximate agent-run consumption of 7 FlexCredits at the 50th percentile and 114 at the 90th percentile. Dollar license prices and the FlexCredit conversion require a quote. A budget needs the user charge, included allowance, and additional consumption price together.
For a hypothetical 2,000 monthly runs, applying seven credits to every run gives 14,000 FlexCredits; applying 114 gives 228,000. Neither assumption establishes the actual monthly cost. The 90th percentile describes a run in the reference distribution, so multiplying it by every request does not produce a 90th-percentile monthly forecast. Ordinary lookups and longer investigations need to be weighted by their expected frequency.
Scheduled agents also need a forecast separate from employee questions. A recurring agent can process many records while licensed staff ask few questions. Headcount explains access cost; run frequency and complexity explain consumption. Source preparation, rollout, and customer maintenance add further costs to the first year.
Relevance AI: agents your team can adapt
A revenue operations team that changes qualification rules frequently may want direct control over its agents. Staff know which account details matter and how sales wants its pre-meeting briefs prepared. Relevance AI is relevant when those people want to turn that knowledge into working agents themselves.
The agent platform provides visual and natural-language creation, with implementation help available through the expert partner network. A partner quote should distinguish initial setup and training from monitoring, rule changes, and application maintenance after launch.
Put the future maintainer into the evaluation. Have them change a qualification rule, inspect a failed request, and hand the workflow to a colleague. That establishes how much control the builder gives the team and how many internal hours it needs. A partner-operated deployment can be compared with a managed service by adding the partner's continuing fees to platform and consumption costs.
Relevance AI pricing: Actions and Vendor Credits
The current Enterprise pricing page presents custom Actions and Vendor Credits and directs buyers to sales. The production budget requires a proposal. Documentation for other plans explains billing behavior but does not establish current new-customer subscription prices or Enterprise allowances.
The billing documentation defines an Action as one Tool execution, including a failed execution. A Tool can contain several steps. Vendor Credits cover model and tool-provider costs. Published top-ups cost $80 per 1,000 Actions and $20 per 10,000 Vendor Credits; Enterprise pricing and billing terms need confirmation in the agreement.
Here is a hypothetical monthly calculation at those published top-up rates. Assume 2,000 requests, four billable Tool executions and 30 Vendor Credits per request. All included allowances have been consumed, and no purchased balances remain:
- Actions: 2,000 × 4 = 8,000; eight packs × $80 = $640.
- Vendor Credits: 2,000 × 30 = 60,000; six packs × $20 = $120.
- Combined top-ups: $760, or $0.38 per incoming request.
The calculation excludes subscription, implementation, staff time, taxes, and external services billed separately. At seven Tool executions per request, with the same assumed Vendor Credits, the top-up total becomes $1,240, or $0.62 per incoming request. Additional checks may justify that cost by preventing incorrect updates or duplicate tasks; accepted output and review minutes show whether they do.
Failed executions and retries belong in the forecast. A single request can consume several attempts before an employee accepts it. For Pro and Team, base Actions reset at renewal, purchased Action top-ups carry forward, and Vendor Credits roll over while subscribed. Enterprise customers need their negotiated rollover and recharge terms in writing.
Processing capacity is another requirement. Relevance AI's system quotas distinguish concurrent tasks from credits consumed. A monthly bill may fit the budget while requests still queue during a busy period. An overnight research batch and an inbound sales enquiry can tolerate very different waits.
Coryntas: agents delivered and managed for the business
Coryntas handles design, AI development, integrations, testing, deployment, and continuing improvements. Its production deployments span employee knowledge and customer-facing operations. In the VPS provider's IP-change workflow, for example, agents can take the request through policy checks, confirmation, billing, payment verification, the infrastructure change, and the result reported to the customer.
For the hypothetical sales handoff, the proposed result can be reviewed through the account brief, CRM status, accepted owner, and kickoff tasks. A missing owner still needs a manager's decision. Coryntas implements the approved behavior and handles the technical work; the business supplies its policies and authorized decisions.
Continuing management matters when the company adds a service or changes its delivery rules. The customer explains the new requirement, and the maintainer updates record use, task creation, and routing before testing the revised process. With Coryntas, that implementation work is handled by the provider under the applicable development terms.
A team making frequent revisions should evaluate provider turnaround as well as staff hours saved. Send a likely change during the evaluation and observe how it is tested and released. This shows what the ongoing service buys and whether the team's preferred change pace fits the arrangement.
Deployment and runtime are separate purchases
Coryntas pricing separates a one-time Deployment & Continuous Development Fee from monthly runtime capacity. The published deployment packages are:
| Package | One-time fee, USD | Included first usage period for an eligible new workspace |
|---|---|---|
| Essential Agent | $5,000 | Core |
| Professional Agent | $15,000 | Growth |
| Advanced Agent | From $50,000; final quote required | Scale |
Custom deployments are quoted separately. Essential and Professional each include one agent serving multiple authorized users; Advanced uses a lead agent and specialist subagents agreed in the proposal. The deployment price is not multiplied by the number of authorized users.
The deployment fee covers support, refinements, and improvements to the deployed system within its agreed operational scope while it operates with valid Coryntas usage. There is no separate recurring development fee or additional minimum-consumption requirement. Major new responsibilities, another department, or substantial integration development may require a separately approved quote.
Monthly capacity is shared by all agents and subagents in the company workspace:
| Package | Monthly price, USD | Relative runtime capacity |
|---|---|---|
| Core | $500 | 1× |
| Growth | $5,000 | 10× |
| Scale | $10,000 | 40× |
All packages use the same meter, covering LLM use, tool execution, compute, infrastructure, and related runtime. Growth has the same price per unit of capacity as Core; Scale costs 50% less per unit. These multipliers compare capacity. The number of customer requests that capacity handles depends on the work performed.
Coryntas estimates the monthly requirement from request volume, recurring tasks, and representative examples before the customer chooses a paid package. The usage guide provides planning examples. A support reply, an investigation of several records, and a request that updates multiple systems consume different amounts from the same pool. Deployment tier and continuing capacity are selected independently.
The included first period begins at production activation and applies once per eligible new workspace. Paid continuation requires the customer's agreement. Monthly capacity, including top-ups, expires at the period's end without rollover. A top-up adds capacity to the current period without extending it or changing the recurring package.
Automatic top-up is off by default. If enabled, the customer sets the package, threshold, and spending limit. Work requiring capacity pauses when capacity is exhausted and replenishment has not succeeded; reporting and package management remain accessible. Deadline-sensitive batches need replenishment planned against those monthly dates.
A Professional Agent first-year budget
Consider a hypothetical $15,000 Professional deployment in a new eligible workspace. The first monthly period includes Growth at production activation. The next eleven are paid with the customer's agreement:
| Continuing workload requirement | First-year supplier calculation | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Core in all eleven paid periods | $15,000 + 11 × $500 | $20,500 |
| Growth in all eleven paid periods | $15,000 + 11 × $5,000 | $70,000 |
The included Growth period does not commit the customer to Growth afterward. The workload estimate determines whether Core or Growth covers the continuing work. These examples assume unchanged package prices and exclude additional capacity, major extensions, separately quoted services, third-party subscriptions, and taxes.
Customer review time adds internal effort. At a hypothetical two hours per week, $75 per hour, and 52 weeks, that effort is $7,800. Combined first-year planning cost becomes $28,300 with Core or $77,800 with Growth, before the exclusions above. Subsequent years have no repeat deployment fee for the unchanged solution and no repeat included period; twelve Core periods cost $6,000, or twelve Growth periods $60,000, at unchanged rates.
Compare invoices with the staff work retained
Give the shortlist the same workload: incoming volume, source records, required decisions, connected applications, and a definition of completion. Otherwise, a draft-generation quote can look cheaper than an offer that also handles approvals and destination updates, while employees still have to finish the missing work.
Consider two fictional proposals for 1,200 accepted requests per month, or 14,400 per year. These are budget examples, not vendor offers. Both supplier charges include implementation and forecast usage. Internal time is valued at $75 per hour over 52 weeks:
| Annual item | Proposal A | Proposal B |
|---|---|---|
| Supplier charges | $28,000 | $44,000 |
| Internal operating time | 8 hours/week | 3 hours/week |
| Value of internal effort | $31,200 | $11,700 |
| Combined planning cost | $59,200 | $55,700 |
| Cost per accepted request | $4.11 | $3.87 |
B costs $16,000 more on the supplier invoice but assumes five fewer staff hours each week, worth $19,500 annually. The combined planning cost is $3,500 lower only if that five-hour difference holds. A pilot needs to measure it before management uses it to justify the purchase.
Saved time can let an employee serve more customers even when payroll stays unchanged. Cash savings require a spending decision, such as avoiding a planned hire. Counting the same time as both reduced payroll and additional revenue would overstate the benefit.
Completion changes the calculation too. At $2,000 monthly spend, 900 accepted outcomes cost about $2.22 each; 500 cost $4.00 each. Dividing by 1,000 incoming requests produces $2.00 while leaving the unfinished work out. An approval can be part of a completed process, but its staff minutes and waiting time still belong in the comparison.
Test the handoff where employees would otherwise repair it
Each implementation should receive the same permitted records and produce the same final brief, approval, CRM state, and tasks. Delivery checks whether the work is usable; the administrator checks access and destination updates. The following cases are evaluation requirements for the hypothetical workflow, not claims that every product meets them without configuration.
Conflicting dates. The signed agreement, Slack discussion, and CRM disagree. The workflow shows the records and applies the business rule for choosing among them. When a commitment needs review, the authorized manager decides before the date is changed downstream.
Restricted information. A document is unavailable to the requesting employee. Its contents stay out of the answer, brief, and destination records. Repeat after access changes. This tests the full output path rather than merely establishing that the source is connected.
Repeated events. The same closed-won trigger arrives twice, including while the original run is still active. Delivery should receive one handoff and the agreed tasks. The supplier needs to show how the proposed workflow identifies work already in progress or completed.
Partial failure. The CRM update succeeds, but the task application is unavailable. The operator can distinguish the completed step from the pending one and resume without duplicating successful work. Give the future operator the instructions and have them recover the case.
An ordinary change. Revise a required field or approval rule, then have the proposed maintainer implement it and rerun the affected cases. Record elapsed time, internal hours, supplier help, and any extra charge. This tests the maintenance arrangement the company will actually use after launch.
Security review follows the same records into the proposed service. A contract may create a brief, extracted fields, an approval history, and copies in receiving applications. Hosting, permissions, retention, and assurance evidence need to cover that actual path. Glean's deployment documentation, Relevance AI's security documentation, and the Coryntas Trust Center provide starting points for the deployment-specific review.
Put the proposed work beside the maintenance commitment
The opening company needs a delivery owner, confirmed dates, and kickoff tasks. A pilot gives it completed cases, unresolved requests, staff hours, and observed consumption to compare with the annual quote. An ordinary rule change then shows who keeps that work running and how long the team waits.
For agents delivered and managed for the business, review the Coryntas packages. Recent requests and examples of completed work give Coryntas a concrete basis for proposing the deployment and estimating monthly capacity. The full comparison covers the detailed commercial terms, rollout, and handover questions.
Published by Coryntas, one of the providers compared. Product and billing sources checked October 5, 2026. Customer results are attributed to their reporting source; workflow examples and budget calculations are hypothetical.
Top comments (0)