[ algomo vs sierra ]
Algomo vs Sierra
Sierra built its own harness, its own models and a staffed agent-development org, and it works: 40% of the Fortune 50. Algomo made the opposite bet on every one of those three choices.
Like for like
Every Sierra cell was read from sierra.ai on 31 August 2026; the sources section below links each claim.
| Algomo | Sierra | |
|---|---|---|
| Main job | Support and inbound sales, on your site | Enterprise service, expanding into revenue |
| Published pricing | Yes: a free plan, then $50 to $4,300 a month, you set it | Outcome-based, no numbers; the pricing page is a 404 |
| Try it before a sales call | Free plan, self-serve | No: contact-sales only |
| Built and operated from | Your own coding agent, over MCP | Ghostwriter and Agent Studio, their own harness |
| What answers the customer | Frontier lab models | Their own constellation of models |
| Who does the deployment | The agent, from endpoints it discovers on your site | An expert agent development team; deploy in weeks, their words |
| Acts in the visitor's live session | Yes: co-navigates the page, calls run as the visitor | No |
| Channels | Web chat only | Voice, chat, SMS, WhatsApp, email, ChatGPT |
| Smallest customer it makes sense for | A five-person company, free | Fortune-50 scale |
Ghostwriter against your own agent
Sierra's answer to agent-building is Ghostwriter, an internal chat that builds agents inside Agent OS. Ours is no builder at all: Algomo is an MCP server, and you build and operate it from Claude Code, Codex or ChatGPT. The labs will out-invest every internal harness in this category, including one we might have built, and your own agent already knows your company. Ghostwriter only ever knows what was typed into Ghostwriter.
The harness argumentWhere Sierra wins
Scale and channels. Sierra runs voice for some of the largest support operations in the world, across phone, SMS, WhatsApp and ChatGPT, with a staffed agent-development org behind every rollout. If you are a Fortune-500 operation that wants a delivery team on the contract, Sierra is the shortlist. We answer in web chat, and our deployment engineers are optional help, not the product.
Algomo runs as the visitor
Sierra's agent acts server-side. Algomo also acts in the visitor's own session: it co-navigates your site with them, and its calls run in their browser with their prices, their region and their login.
Where these rows come from
Fetched 31 August 2026, from sierra.ai. Ghostwriter is their own name, the agent-building agent, on its product page; the model constellation and deploy in weeks are on the product pages; the channel list, including ChatGPT over MCP, is on the channels page; the Fortune-50 figure is Sierra's homepage claim; the staffed model shows on the careers page, which lists an agent-development org of roughly forty open roles. Outcome-based with no numbers is their own description, and their pricing page is a 404. Algomo's cells are read from this site's pricing page.
Questions, answered
Is Algomo just a cheaper Sierra?
It is a different mechanism. The integration work Sierra staffs with engineers is the work the agent does itself here, from the endpoints your site already calls, and you direct it from your own coding agent rather than through a vendor team.
Can it handle things behind a login?
Two ways: calls that should run as the visitor run in their session with their cookies, and internal systems are set up with us on Business and Enterprise.
What if our site changes?
A connector that starts failing raises a task, and your coding agent repairs it over MCP: rediscover the endpoint, restage, test on the live site, save.
[ next step ]