RPA repeats clicks and keystrokes on screen, always the same way. An AI agent reads, understands and decides within your company’s rules, and copes much better with change.
Side by side
| Criteria | RPA | Agent in your operations |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | A bot that mimics clicks and typing on screens and systems. | An AI agent that reads documents and messages and decides the next step. |
| Who does the work | The bot replays the recorded steps. | The agent does it, and calls a person when a case falls outside the norm. |
| Your systems | Works through the systems’ screens. If a screen changes, the bot usually breaks. | Prefers integrations and APIs. Uses the screen only when there’s no other way. |
| Control | Fixed rules. An exception makes the bot stop. | You approve what matters. Everything is logged. |
| Who builds and maintains it | An RPA developer, every time a screen changes. | We monitor and fine-tune it every month, with documentation. |
| Results | Good for high volumes of identical tasks. | Hours given back and money saved, measured every month. |
Based on public information about each tool, checked in October 2026 · names and trademarks belong to their owners
When RPA is enough
When an agent makes more sense
You can use both: the agent decides what to do and can trigger an RPA bot you already have.
FAQ
It doesn’t have to. Where the bot works well, it stays. The agent comes in where the task requires reading and judgment.
We can work through the screen as well, when there’s no other way.
No. We handle the technical side and train the people who’ll use it. On your side, all you need is someone who knows the process.
Other comparisons