Airspeed
Revenue execution platform built around call intelligence, founded in 2022 as Glyphic by two former Google DeepMind research scientists and rebranded to Airspeed on 20 May 2026. The platform records and processes sales calls into structured deal data rather than transcripts, extracting summaries, action items, qualification signals against MEDDIC, BANT or SPICED, risks and competitor mentions, then writes them to the CRM and drafts follow ups. It has extended into autonomous agents that act across calls, email, tickets and CRM records without waiting for a human trigger, and reports that customers built thousands of custom agents in the first four months of 2026. Operating from London and New York with roughly 180 to 200 customers across 20 countries, and more than 25 million dollars raised including a 20 million dollar Series A in June 2026.
Capability Axes
Capability grades
17 of 17 axes rated · 10 graded A or B
AI native by construction and by origin. Transcription, speaker separation, signal extraction against named qualification methodologies, risk detection and the agents that act on all of it are the product; there is no non AI remainder to fall back on. The company was founded by two former Google DeepMind research scientists and its published positioning is explicitly that the previous generation of tools surfaced insight while this one executes work. Remove the models and nothing sellable remains.
The gap sits exactly where the product is boldest. The platform is sold on agents that update systems, send follow ups and flag risks without a human trigger, and customers are reported to have built thousands of custom agents on it, yet nothing published describes the oversight model around any of that.
No statement of what an agent may send unreviewed versus what requires approval, no description of what a misconfigured custom agent can reach, and nothing on what stops a run once it is live against real customer records and real inboxes. Autonomy is the pitch and containment is unaddressed.
No model or provider is named anywhere public, no version or update policy is stated, and nothing explains how the platform derives a close probability or a risk flag from a conversation, although the company publishes editorial arguing that such scores need reasoning behind them. Transcription accuracy is disclosed with its scope, which is unusually honest, but that measures output quality rather than explaining the system. For a product whose extracted signals feed forecasting, the derivation is the transparency question and it is unanswered.
Better than most of this cohort, and short of the top band on basis. A named customer figure is published with a timeframe attached: an enterprise software customer reporting more than 193,000 dollars saved within 90 days and roughly six hours reclaimed per sales representative per week.
Product accuracy is quoted with its scope stated rather than as a bare number, at over 95 percent transcription accuracy on standard sales calls in English, with most calls fully processed within five minutes. Usage figures are specific: revenue up fourfold year on year, monthly run volume close to tripling between January and April 2026. What is missing is the method behind the headline saving, and the wider claims arrive through funding coverage rather than published measurement.
Recording consent is handled well and is graded on the recipient axis. What is not addressed is the sending side, which the product now touches directly: agents draft and send follow up email on a representative's behalf, and nothing published covers opt out handling, suppression, or how the obligations attaching to automated commercial email are met when an agent rather than a person composes and sends it. No public enforcement action located.
A real posture, published in product documentation rather than buried in a policy: GDPR compliance claimed, encryption in transit and at rest, single sign on and SAML, data residency options offered, retention configurable from 30 days to seven years, and an explicit statement that customers retain full ownership of their data and may request deletion at any time. Configurable retention on recorded conversations is a meaningful control that many peers do not offer. Short of the top band because no data processing agreement, subprocessor list or data subject rights process was located, and lawful basis for recording third parties rests with the customer.
Unambiguous by construction. The inputs are the customer's own calls, emails, support tickets and CRM records, and no third party contact or intent data is sold or blended in. The company states that customers retain ownership of that material. Short of the top band because the flow of conversation data through processing and any sub processors is not documented, which for recorded third party speech is the licensing question that would matter in a dispute.
Low exposure and the method is disclosed, which is what separates this from the silent end of the category. The platform joins meetings as a named participant rather than capturing audio covertly, and reaches CRM, email and ticketing systems through their own interfaces. Recording bots do sit within the terms of the meeting platforms they join, and the company states no position on those terms, so the grade rests on a disclosed method rather than a stated conformance commitment.
This is the question the category turns on and it is unanswered. Nothing published states whether recorded conversations, extracted signals or the custom agents customers build inform models or capabilities that serve other customers, and no opt out or contractual exclusion is documented. Ownership and deletion are addressed, retention is configurable, and neither of those answers the cross client boundary. A buyer whose competitors are also customers cannot tell from public material whether their pipeline conversations improve the instance those competitors use.
One of the strongest positions in the index and it is published as a direct answer to a direct question. The company states that it does not record without consent, that its recorder joins calls as a named participant and announces its presence, that consent handling follows the customer's own policy with participants able to opt out, and that consent first recording workflows are supported for compliance sensitive industries.
Disclosure by default to the people being recorded is exactly what this axis asks for. It falls short of the top band because the obligations in force since 2 August 2026 under Article 50 of the EU AI Act are not addressed by name, and nothing states whether agent drafted follow up email reaching a prospect identifies itself as machine generated.
Bidirectional by design and central to the value proposition: the platform positions itself as the layer between the conversation and the system of record, pushing and pulling across CRM, email, calendar and support tickets, with structured deal data written back rather than transcripts attached. Named CRM coverage spans the two major platforms. Depth thins in public material, with no API reference, object mapping or sync behaviour documented before purchase.
Multi tenant cloud with residency options stated to be available, which for a company at this stage is more than most offer and is the right answer for a product holding recorded conversations from customers across twenty countries. Short of the top band because the regions themselves are not enumerated, so a European buyer knows an option exists without knowing what it is until they ask.
SOC 2 Type II certification is claimed and stated consistently across product documentation, alongside encryption in transit and at rest and single sign on with SAML. That is a credible posture for a Series A company holding sensitive recorded material. Short of the top band on the usual two points: no trust centre or document portal was located, and no audit date, report recency or penetration test attestation is visible to an outsider.
No published pricing was located. There is no pricing page, no tier structure, no unit of pricing and no indication of whether the platform is charged per seat, per recorded hour or per agent action, and the platform pages route pricing questions to a sales conversation or a demo booking. A buyer cannot form an order of magnitude estimate, which is a notable omission for a product aimed at mid market teams who are the segment most likely to self qualify on price.
Two of the pieces are present and published: customers are stated to retain full ownership of their data and can request deletion at any time, and retention is configurable from 30 days to seven years, which gives a customer real control over what accumulates. The rest is missing.
No documented export path for recordings, transcripts, extracted signals or the custom agents a customer has built, no post termination data rights, no deletion timeline, and no public commercial terms a prospect can read before signing.
The product now sends on a representative's behalf, with agents generating and dispatching follow ups automatically, and nothing published addresses the sending craft that comes with that: which mailbox is used, what volume governance applies when agents fire across a whole book of accounts, or what happens to sender reputation if agent generated follow ups draw complaints. Deliverability is not claimed and not addressed.
The segment is stated plainly as mid market business to business sales teams and the evidence supports it: named customers including a document experience platform, a vector database company and a pricing software vendor, roughly 180 to 200 customers across 20 countries, and operations split between London and New York. The gap is language. Transcription accuracy is published for English and nothing states what coverage looks like in the other markets the customer count implies, which matters more for a speech product than for most.
What Changed
Material product, compliance, evidence and commercial changes at Airspeed, each verified against a live source and tagged to the capability axis it bears on. Funding rounds and awards are not product changes and are not logged.
Airspeed switched on Mach 1, which its 24 Sep newsletter describes as deep analysis, for every workspace by default, with no request or admin toggle needed. Each user gets a published allowance of 16 Mach 1 runs per month.
Airspeed rebuilt its MCP server so that AI assistants such as Claude can read calls and deals from the browser rather than through a desktop installation. The release also fixes installation problems Windows users had reported and reduces the latency between a question and its answer.
Airspeed expanded what its agents can produce, adding chart generation, presentation decks and code. The Deal Board now displays CRM fields inside the view rather than requiring a jump to the CRM.
Pricing
What this vendor charges, what it commits to in writing, and where the bill can move. Figures the vendor publishes itself are labeled Vendor Published. Figures labeled Estimated come from other sources and the vendor has not confirmed them.
- ›There is no pricing page at all and no price published anywhere.
- ›What is offered instead is free use until your contract with a named competitor runs out. That is the only commercial term on the site.
- ›Read what that tells you. They are not selling on price, they are buying your switching decision and leaving the price conversation until your renewal. Your existing contract becomes the number your eventual price is negotiated against.
- ›Before accepting, ask two things. What happens at the end of the free period, because no rate has been published and therefore none has been committed to. And whether your historical recordings and transcripts come across, because that archive is usually the reason teams stay where they are.
- ›Also worth noting: running two call recording tools at once means recording the same conversations twice, which is a consent question, not just a cost one.
How the price works
What you are charged for, and what makes the bill go up.
Not published, and no pricing surface exists. The pricing address returns nothing in either form tried, the homepage navigation carries no link to pricing, plans or cost, and no sitemap is served.
One commercial term is published on the homepage and it is the only one: the product is offered free until the buyer's existing contract with a named incumbent competitor ends. That is a competitive displacement arrangement rather than a trial, and its duration is determined by the buyer's agreement with a third party rather than by the vendor.
No tier name, band, starting point, seat rate, usage rate, minimum, contract length or standard trial term appears anywhere. The metering basis is unpublished: nothing indicates whether the product would be charged per seat, per recorded call, per hour of transcription, per user of the coaching layer, or as an annual platform license.
Because the sole published commercial term is indexed to a competitor's contract rather than to any unit of the vendor's own, no rate can be derived from it and no comparison against any other vendor in this index is possible from published material.
No credible third party estimate was located, so none is recorded.
What the contract says about your data
What the vendor commits to in writing once your data is in the product.
Not established. No security page, trust surface, processing agreement, sub processor listing, privacy policy or terms document was located from the homepage or its navigation.
That is a partial retrieval rather than a confirmed absence, since only the homepage and constructed pricing addresses were followed and no pricing page exists to carry a footer.
The custody question for this product class is among the heaviest in the index and a buyer should not let the early stage presentation soften it. Conversation intelligence platforms record, transcribe and analyze sales calls, which means the platform holds the actual spoken content of conversations with the buyer's own customers and prospects, not metadata about them. Consent obligations for recording vary by jurisdiction and by whether one party or all parties must agree, and they sit with the customer rather than with the platform.
Two further questions matter specifically for a young vendor in this category and neither is addressed by anything published. Whether call recordings and transcripts are used to train models beyond the individual customer's account, and what happens to the recording archive at termination, since an archive of customer conversations is both a compliance liability and, for many buyers, a coaching asset they would want returned.
A buyer should treat published processing terms as a precondition for evaluation rather than a procurement formality here, and none were located.
Getting started
What it costs and what is included before the product is running.
Not published, and no surface exists on which a fee would appear. No setup charge, onboarding fee, migration rate, professional services rate, seat minimum, contract length, trial term or free tier was located.
The one commercial term published is the displacement offer: free until the buyer's contract with a named incumbent competitor expires. That is a period of unpaid usage rather than a trial, and its length is set by the buyer's existing agreement rather than by the vendor, so it could run from weeks to most of a year depending on when the buyer approaches.
A buyer taking that offer should be clear about what it does and does not cover. Running two conversation intelligence platforms in parallel means recording the same calls twice, which has a consent implication rather than merely a cost one, and it means the historical archive stays with the incumbent unless migration is separately arranged. Nothing published addresses whether the vendor migrates historical recordings, transcripts or coaching material, and for this product class that archive is often the reason a team stays put.
The question to settle before accepting free usage is therefore what happens at the end of it. A vendor that has not published a rate card has not committed to a rate, and a buyer arriving at their incumbent's renewal date with no alternative in hand has weakened rather than strengthened their position.
What to watch for
Where this pricing can surprise a buyer who has not read it closely.
No pricing page, and a displacement offer in its place that is more revealing than a price would be.
The pricing address returns nothing on either form tried and no pricing route appears in the site's navigation. That makes this the third vendor in two turns with no pricing destination at all, after 9Lenses and Accent Technologies.
What sits on the homepage instead of a price is a single commercial proposition: the product is offered free until the buyer's existing contract with a named incumbent competitor ends. That is a competitive displacement offer and it is the only commercial term the vendor publishes anywhere.
It is worth recording precisely because of what it reveals about the intended motion. A vendor offering free usage for the remainder of a rival's contract term is not selling on price at all, it is buying the switching decision and deferring the price conversation until renewal. The implication a buyer should draw is that the eventual figure is negotiated against what they were already paying the incumbent rather than set from a rate card, which means the buyer's own current contract is the strongest information in the negotiation and the vendor already knows they have it.
That also means no published figure would be meaningful even if one existed, since the offer is explicitly indexed to a third party's contract rather than to a unit of usage.
The second consequence is for this index rather than for a buyer. A vendor whose entire published commercial position is defined relative to a named competitor is one whose pricing cannot be captured, compared or cited in any stable form. There is nothing for an answer engine to quote and nothing for a directory to record, and that will remain true regardless of how the product develops.
One further observation for the roster rather than for the grade. The homepage carries a reference to a funding round and to founder led content, which places this vendor at an early stage relative to most of the roster, consistent with the absence of a pricing page rather than with a decision to withhold one.
No dollar figure is recorded in the numeric field and no estimate is recorded in the display field.