Comparison
Creobot and generic AI chat widgets
There is a broad category of widgets that connect a language model to a website with minimal grounding in the site's own content. This page is about that category. It is deliberately not aimed at any named product.
- Private launchOnboarding selected teams now
- Built by CreoglyphSeven client engagements behind the product
- Benchmarked before you switchYour current assistant stays live throughout
Status, stated first
Creobot opens to teams in order. Access is by waitlist, demo request or public-content pilot. Every product compared here is available today and Creobot is not. That is a real difference and it belongs at the top of the page rather than in a footnote.
What we have not verified
We have not verified current feature details, pricing or limits for this product against its own documentation as part of writing this page. Rather than publish a feature table we cannot stand behind, this page compares positioning and category fit only. For anything specific, read the vendor's own documentation, which will be more current than this page. If you find something here that is wrong, tell us and we will correct it.
Where a generic widget is the better choice
- Your site is tiny and the questions are trivial. A widget that answers three obvious questions from a hand written prompt is genuinely enough, and the retrieval machinery is overhead you do not need.
- You want a conversational tone rather than accurate answers, for example on a promotional microsite where nothing said has commercial consequence.
- You need it live in ten minutes and accuracy is not the point.
- In all three cases the simpler thing is the right thing and paying for grounding would be waste.
Where Creobot differs
The failure mode is what separates the categories. An ungrounded widget answers from the model's general knowledge when your content does not cover something, and it does so fluently. On a marketing site that produces a commitment your company did not make, in writing, to a buyer.
The dangerous version is never the obviously absurd answer. It is the plausible one that is slightly out of date, because nobody catches it and the visitor believes it.
Grounding is a refusal mechanism before it is an accuracy mechanism. The behaviour that matters is what happens when the answer is not in your content, and the honest answer is to say so.
Citation is the second difference. Without it you cannot tell whether a wrong answer came from bad retrieval or bad phrasing, so you cannot fix it.
Which to pick, by situation
Every row is a claim about Creobot or about availability, not a claim about the other product's features. We have not verified those.
| If this is true | Pick | Why |
|---|---|---|
| You need it live this month | a generic widget | Creobot opens in order |
| You need a named compliance certification | a generic widget | Creobot holds none |
| You need a large integration surface today | a generic widget | Creobot ships an embed |
| You want refusal when your content does not cover it | Creobot | Design position |
| You want a citation on every answer | Creobot | Design position |
| You want source count capped on purpose | Creobot | Lower plans cap it deliberately |
| You want per conversation pricing | Creobot | Per conversation model |
How to tell what you are looking at
Vendors in this category describe themselves almost identically, so the marketing page will not tell you whether a product is grounded. Four tests will, and each takes under a minute.
Ask something your site does not cover
Phrase it plausibly. A grounded assistant says it does not know and offers a route onward. An ungrounded one answers fluently, and that answer is the demonstration.
Check whether the answer names a source
No citation means you cannot separate a retrieval failure from a generation failure, so neither you nor the vendor can debug it.
Ask the same thing twice, worded differently
Substantively different answers mean the substance comes from the model rather than from a retrieved passage. That is the definition of ungrounded.
Ask about one of your competitors
An ungrounded widget will often oblige with an opinion, sitting on your marketing site under your logo.
None of these requires access to the vendor's documentation and none can be answered by a feature table. Run them on any product in this category, including ours.
The cost of getting this wrong
Worth being concrete, because the argument for grounding sounds abstract until it is not.
An invented price is a written quote
Your company did not authorise it and the visitor has a screenshot.
An invented policy is a commitment
You will either honour it or dispute it, and both are expensive.
An invented capability closes a deal that unwinds
That costs more at implementation than losing the deal would have.
What to do before you decide, on any of these
The same four steps regardless of which products are on your shortlist, and they are worth doing before you talk to anyone.
Write down the ten real questions
Taken from your support inbox rather than invented. This list is the specification, and almost nobody has it written down before they start evaluating.
Decide which twenty pages hold the answers
If fewer than ten do, your problem is content and no product on any shortlist fixes it. Better to discover that before spending money.
Decide what must never be auto-answered
Anything contractual, anything about money already paid, anything needing an account lookup. This is the requirement most often left out of an evaluation.
Test each candidate against that list
Twenty minutes each. It produces a better decision than any comparison page, this one included.
Whatever the result, it will be specific to your content, which is the point. A comparison page cannot tell you which performs better on your site.
Questions
Trust
Not sure which fits?
Describe what your site has to answer and we will tell you honestly whether Creobot is the right shape, including when it is not.