Glean is strong at helping people find what the company already knows. That matters. It is also not the same job as running multi-step agentic workflows that intake work, call tools under least privilege, stop for human review, and write back to systems of record inside a deploy-anywhere boundary.
Take: Enterprise search is not an agentic workflow platform, and treating Glean like one wastes a year. If your RFP says "agents" but your success metric is "better answers from internal docs," buy search. If your success metric is shorter cycle time on regulated queues with audit evidence, buy an agentic workflow control plane.
StackAI is that control plane for defense, banks, and healthcare: atomized multi-agent processes, low-code builder, 300+ integrations, MCP, sandboxes/computers/terminals, human review, FDEs + AI strategists, and StackAI cloud / VPC / on-prem with a HIPAA- and GDPR-ready posture. Primer: what is an AI agent. Builder scorecard: best AI agent builder.
Two jobs, two products
Job | What good looks like | Typical product shape |
|---|---|---|
Find and understand | Ranked answers, permissions-aware retrieval, citations | Enterprise search / knowledge assistants (Glean-class) |
Run the process | Atomized steps, tools, HITL, write-backs, deploy path | Agentic workflow platform (StackAI) |
Glean-class tools shine when the pain is "I cannot find the policy, ticket, or doc." StackAI shines when the pain is "this packet sits in a queue for three days because humans copy fields between five systems."
Confusing them produces expensive theater: a search assistant "helping" underwriters while the actual underwriting workflow stays manual. See AI agents for insurance and AI agents for legal.
Where Glean can be the right buy
Buy Glean (or keep it) when:
Knowledge discovery across SaaS apps is the primary KPI
You need permissions-aware search more than governed write-backs
Agents, if any, are light assistants on top of retrieval, not production writers into core systems
That is a legitimate enterprise purchase. Just do not staff a "transformation" program that assumes search will replace case management.
Where StackAI is the right buy
Buy StackAI when you need:
Agentic workflows that own intake, validation, drafting, review, and commit
Least-privilege tools via 300+ integrations and domain-scoped MCP (MCP for regulated enterprises, MCP servers)
Sandboxes, computers, and terminals for real packet work
Deploy-anywhere for regulated data (on-prem/VPC checklist, HIPAA/GDPR ready, deployment options, /security)
Delivery with FDEs and AI strategists
Personal always-on agents are still a third category: useful for individuals, not your org control plane (personal vs enterprise agents).
Regulated evaluation questions
Does the system write to systems of record, or only retrieve?
Can you place the runtime in VPC or on-prem when required?
Are tools inventoryable (MCP/integrations) with environment separation?
Is human review a workflow node with evidence, or a chat afterthought?
Who stays through the first production cohort?
Governance expectations: governing AI agents at scale. How we wire MCP: how to use the StackAI MCP server.
Industry realities: banks, hospitals and /solutions/healthcare, defense. If Microsoft is the other shortlist item, see StackAI vs Copilot Studio.
A one-page RFP split that saves a year
Put two success metrics on the page before vendor demos:
Knowledge KPI: time to find the right policy/doc; permission-correct answers; citation quality.
Process KPI: cycle time on a named queue; percent of runs with complete evidence; review time; incorrect write-backs.
Score search vendors on (1). Score agentic platforms on (2). If a vendor claims both, make them run both tests with the same data class and the same security observers. Most "agents" bolted onto search will fail (2) the moment a write-back and VPC placement enter the room.
StackAI will gladly lose a pure knowledge RFP and win a process RFP. That honesty is cheaper than a transformation program that ships bookmarks.
Related kit posts for process buyers: sandboxes, MCP regulated, FDEs, on-prem/VPC, HIPAA/GDPR, insurance, legal, defense.
What "agent" means in a Glean-shaped pitch versus ours
Many search vendors now say "agents." Ask what the agent is allowed to change. If the honest answer is "it retrieves and drafts an answer card," that is an assistant on search. If the answer is "it runs an atomized multi-step workflow with MCP tools, human review, and write-back under deploy-anywhere controls," that is StackAI's category.
Words drift. Controls do not. Make the vendor show the write path, the reviewer UI, and the placement options on the same call. Then decide.
Coexistence without self-deception
Many enterprises should keep a search product and run StackAI for process automation. Let Glean-class tools answer "where is the policy." Let StackAI run "assemble the packet, validate, draft the update, wait for review, write back." Share identity and data classification rules. Do not merge the programs into one vague "AI initiative."
Bring a real queue (not a search query) to a StackAI demo. If the demo success looks like a better answer card, you needed search. If it looks like a shorter, safer handoff across systems, you needed agentic workflows.
Search finds. Agentic workflows finish. Regulated buyers who need finish should stop interviewing search vendors as if they sold a control plane.
Bottom line for the steering committee: fund search to find; fund StackAI to finish. Mixing the budgets without splitting the KPIs is how regulated AI programs look busy and ship nothing that changes a queue.
Bernard Aceituno
Co-Founder at StackAI
