ENAI vs SuperAGI (2026)
The decision is whether you want the boundary published or the platform proven, because these two have precisely one each. ENAI publishes what its system will never send, naming messages outside approved voice and claims, outreach to excluded accounts or segments, and volume beyond the customer's pacing rules, and it has no named customer, no case study, no quantified outcome and no price. SuperAGI carries four hundred and forty one reviews at a four point six average with the distribution published, five named customers and an open source agent framework with a real developer following, and nothing located describes an approval gate, a stop condition, an escalation path or any constraint on what an agent may do once it is running. Its voice agents hold telephone conversations billed by the minute. One vendor has written down where the machine stops and shown nobody using it. The other has been used at scale and written nothing down.
- The constraint has to exist before the volume does. ENAI publishes approval rules covering voice, claims, volume and exclusions, routes sensitive accounts and unsupported claims to a person before action, and claims an audit trail at the level of the individual message tracing back to the signal and the rule that permitted it.
- Your market is regulated and your deals have committees. The product is built for long procurement cycles with multi stakeholder approval paths, publishes eleven verticals with an initial focus of three named outright, and marks which have recorded product runs and which are workflow models rather than blurring the two.
- You want honest sourcing underneath the outreach. Much of the raw material is the customer's own licensed data flowing in from named systems, and the market signal layer works on company level change rather than personal records, so this vendor is not selling a standing inventory of records about people who never contracted with anyone.
- You want a large body of independent evidence rather than a vendor's word. Four hundred and forty one reviews average four point six with a published distribution and themes quantified by mention count, and one named customer is reported to have retired eleven separate go to market tools on adoption, which is a specific falsifiable claim rather than a percentage.
- You intend to build on it rather than only use it. A published interface and a model context protocol server both expose the platform's context graph, and the underlying agent framework is open source with roughly sixteen thousand stars and two thousand forks, so the architecture beneath the commercial product is inspectable.
- You need to model campaign cost by action. Credits are consumed at published rates, one for an address enrichment, ten for a telephone enrichment and fifteen per minute of voice agent time, and prospecting, signals and anonymous visitor identification are reported to carry no additional charge.
Plain facts
| ENAI | SuperAGI | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | AI SDR & Outbound Agents | AI SDR & Outbound Agents |
| Founded | Not published | 2023 |
| Headquarters | London, United Kingdom | Not published |
| Website | enai.ai | superagi.com |
Side by Side
| Axis | E ENAI |
S SuperAGI |
|---|---|---|
|
AI Capability
|
||
| AI Centrality | ||
| Autonomy and Oversight Model | ||
| AI Disclosure and Model Transparency | ||
| Operational and Outcome Evidence | ||
|
Compliance and Risk
|
||
| Outreach Compliance Posture | ||
| Data Privacy Posture | ||
| Data Licensing and Provenance | ||
| Platform Terms Exposure | ||
| AI Safety and Data Stewardship | ||
| Recipient Disclosure and Authenticity | ||
|
Integration and Deployment
|
||
| Ecosystem and Integration Depth | ||
| Deployment Model and Data Residency | ||
| Security Certifications and Trust Center | ||
|
Commercial and Operational
|
||
| Commercial Transparency | ||
| Exit and Data Portability | ||
| Deliverability and Sending Discipline | ||
| Segment and Market Coverage | ||
The short version of each
ENAI
ENAI is a governed revenue execution layer for complex business to business markets, where agent workflows read market signals, build an account brief, map the buying committee, prepare outreach inside customer defined rules, qualify the reply and hand the account to a named seller with its evidence intact. The GTM Tech Index grades it B on autonomy and oversight for the most complete published claim set on that axis outside Salesforce, including a published list of what the system will never send that no other vendor in the index has written down, and holds it below the top band because none of it is evidenced by a configuration surface, a rule syntax or an audit artefact. The index grades ENAI D on operational and outcome evidence and D on commercial transparency, with no price, unit, tier or model published anywhere.
Source: GTM Tech Index, 2026
SuperAGI
SuperAGI is an agentic record system built so that autonomous agents and human representatives are both first class actors whose actions the platform tracks equally, grown out of an open source autonomous agent framework and sold on consolidation, with more than twenty five applications and agents in one platform. The GTM Tech Index grades it A on ecosystem and integration depth, because a published interface and a model context protocol server both expose the platform's context graph and the underlying framework carries roughly sixteen thousand stars and two thousand forks, making the architecture beneath the commercial product inspectable in a way almost nothing else in the index is. The index grades it D on autonomy and oversight, and records that both of the vendor's own web surfaces were unreadable, so every grade rests on independent coverage.
Source: GTM Tech Index, 2026
Common questions
Is ENAI better than SuperAGI for agentic sales?
They have opposite halves of what a buyer wants. ENAI publishes where the machine stops, naming approval rules over voice, claims, pacing and exclusions and a list of what the system will never send, and it has no named customer, no case study, no quantified outcome and no price. SuperAGI has four hundred and forty one reviews at a four point six average, five named customers and an open source framework with a real developer following, and nothing located describes an approval gate, a stop condition or any constraint on an agent once running.
Can a human stop or approve what the agents do?
Only ENAI, and the GTM Tech Index grades the two three bands apart on that axis. ENAI publishes customer defined authority over what the system may research, prepare, approve, send or escalate, routes sensitive accounts and unsupported claims to a person before action, and describes actions as constrained, logged and reversible. At SuperAGI two passes located no approval gate, no human in the loop configuration, no audit trail description, no stop condition and no escalation path, while the platform is marketed on agents working around the clock and reinforcement learning adjusting their behaviour from live outcomes.
Which one has real customer evidence?
SuperAGI, substantially, and it is the widest gap here. Four hundred and forty one reviews average four point six with the distribution published, themes quantified by mention count, five named customers spanning developer tooling, communications, collaboration, healthcare and security, and one reported to have retired eleven go to market tools on adoption. ENAI has no named customer, logo, case study, quantified outcome or independent review anywhere, and substitutes unedited recordings of the product working a live workflow, offered under a heading about evidence before promise.
How much do ENAI and SuperAGI cost?
SuperAGI publishes per action burn rates and ENAI publishes nothing at all. SuperAGI runs two pricing models across two domains, a flat structure at a hundred and fifty, three hundred and fifty and a thousand dollars monthly and a per seat structure at forty nine dollars, with credits consumed at published rates and a permanent free tier at a hundred credits monthly. A buyer cannot tell which model applies to them. ENAI carries no pricing page, unit, tier, range or model anywhere, and every call to action resolves to a scheduling link or a personal mailbox.
Do ENAI or SuperAGI say what AI models they use?
Neither names a provider, family or version. At ENAI the silence is conspicuous because explainability is the central promise: what is published traces an output back to its source and the rule that permitted it, which is disclosure about evidence rather than about what generated the text, and the account brief and buying committee map are inferences presented to a seller as fact with no accuracy figure attached. At SuperAGI the silence covers a context graph reported to process more than one and a half billion data points daily, predictive scoring across a hundred variables, voice agents and reinforcement learning.
How does the GTM Tech Index grade ENAI and SuperAGI?
Both are graded on the same seventeen capability and compliance axes from public sources, at documented depths of fifteen and ten. The GTM Tech Index grades ENAI B on autonomy and oversight, platform terms exposure, AI safety and stewardship and segment coverage, where SuperAGI holds D on the first three and B on the fourth. SuperAGI takes A on ecosystem and integration depth for a published interface, a model context protocol server and an inspectable open source framework, and B on operational evidence. Both take A on AI centrality. Note that SuperAGI's grades rest on independent coverage, because neither of its own web surfaces could be read. The index publishes no composite score and declares no winner.
Related comparisons
Other published head to head assessments involving these vendors or their closest peers. The full set for this category is on the AI SDR & Outbound Agents page.
Neither vendor names the mechanism a recipient uses to stop being contacted, and at one of them a customer says it was not there. ENAI's control vocabulary is stronger than most of this index and it points inward: exclusion lists, pacing rules, approved claims and an escalation path are all customer configurable, which answers how a buyer keeps outbound inside its own policy while naming no obligation at all.
No consent standard, no unsubscribe mechanic, no suppression duty and no sending statute appears anywhere, and the omission that bites hardest is domestic, since a London company selling outbound execution into European markets never mentions the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations that govern its customers' unsolicited approaches. At SuperAGI the same absence has a witness.
One detailed customer review describes entering an annual agreement, being unable to send a campaign for months, and identifies the lack of automated unsubscribe handling as introducing regulatory risk on an email marketing platform. That is one review among four hundred and forty one, only two of which carry the lowest rating, so it is not representative of the general experience.
It is recorded because the allegation is specific rather than vague, concerns a legally required mechanism rather than a preference, and no counter evidence was located. This index records what is published and reported and asserts nothing about whether either company is compliant. The sharper divergence is disclosure to the person on the other end.
SuperAGI's voice agents hold telephone conversations billed at fifteen credits a minute, so a prospect answers a call and speaks with software, and nothing states that the agent identifies itself as automated. ENAI generates the message and a named seller sends it under the company's own brand. Neither tells the recipient a machine was involved, and neither addresses Article 50 of the EU AI Act, in force since 2 August 2026.