Say a few hundred vendor invoices hit a shared inbox every day. Each one needs its fields pulled out and written into your system of record. Claude can extract the fields from an invoice you paste in, or even write you a script to do it, but either way a person still prompts it, runs it, checks the output, and owns keeping it working, every time. Caddi records that workflow once and runs it unattended across 70+ tools, reading the PDFs and writing to your system of record with no one in the loop.
The basics
What is Claude?
A general AI assistant you prompt for reasoning, drafting, and working through long documents. It writes code too, so it can even build an automation, but you run and maintain whatever it produces.
What is Caddi?
The deterministic AI automation platform for ops and admin teams. Ops teams teach Caddi their workflows over a screen share, and then Caddi runs them reliably hundreds of times a week.
Already have Claude licenses? Use both
Plenty of firms hand a few people Claude licenses to try the same workflows they'd otherwise automate. Claude can take you far; it will even write the code for a first version. But turning that into something that runs operations unattended, integrated, monitored, and maintained as your tools change, is a systems-engineering job, not a prompt. Caddi gives you a reliable operational win now while Claude spreads across the team for analysis, drafting, and prototyping in parallel.
Why deterministic wins for the actual work
For repetitive, high-volume operational work, three things decide whether it pays off, and each favors a maintained, deterministic system over an assistant you prompt or a script you have to run and maintain yourself.
Cost
Claude bills per seat and consumes model tokens on each request. Caddi uses AI only at setup; production then runs as deterministic code, so the per-run cost is low and predictable at any volume.
Reliability
Caddi runs each automation the same way every time, repeatable and audit-logged, with no hallucinations. Claude's output is probabilistic and can vary between runs, which suits analysis but is risky for unattended work touching client records.
Speed
A reasoning assistant works through a task step by step and waits on a person to act on each result. Caddi executes directly over APIs, so it clears document and inbox work far faster than a human-plus-assistant loop.
Caddi vs. Claude at a glance
| Claude | Caddi | |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | Reasoning & coding assistant | Agentic automation |
| Who does the work | A person (prompt, or run code it writes) | Caddi, unattended |
| System of record | Copy-paste, or a script you host & maintain | Native writes across 70+ tools |
| Production runtime | LLM generation each prompt | Deterministic code; AI only at setup |
| Reliability | Probabilistic; can hallucinate | Repeatable; auditable |
| Cost model | Per-seat + token usage | Low, predictable per-run |
| Strength | Reasoning, drafting, writing code | Operational throughput |
| Best fit | Analysis, drafting, prototyping | Document & inbox workflows |
How they score where it counts
Claude is excellent for reasoning, coding, and long-document work. Caddi leads on everything that makes operational automation dependable: cost, reliability, speed, running unattended, and integrating with your system of record.
The same task: clearing the invoice queue, both ways
Point both at the same job, pulling fields off every invoice and writing them to your system of record. Toggle to see what each is like.
- 1Screen-share one invoice end to endShow how a single invoice goes from inbox to system of record, no prompting, no copy-paste.
- 2Caddi writes deterministic codeAI understands it at setup; production runs predictably over APIs.
- 3Every invoice is processed unattendedFields are extracted and written to your system of record automatically.
- 4Caddi maintains itEdge cases and upkeep are handled for you, nothing to babysit.
Which fits your need
Which fits your situation?
Claude
Long-document reasoning for a person to act on is exactly what Claude is great at.
See Caddi do the work
Bring a workflow you currently push through Claude by hand. Caddi will build it from a screen recording and run it across 70+ tools. See real examples or book a demo.
Do more with less
See Caddi in action
Tell us where to reach you and the calendar opens right here. In 30 minutes we'll show you how Caddi automates the back-office work that grows with your clients—built, run, and maintained for you.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between Caddi and Claude?
Claude is a general AI assistant, strong at reasoning, analysis, working through long documents, and writing code; it can even build a first version of an automation that a person then runs and maintains. Caddi is an agentic automation platform: you record a workflow once and an agent runs it unattended as deterministic code across 70+ tools, reading varied PDFs and inboxes and writing to your system of record. Claude is for prototyping; Caddi is for running it in production, at scale.
We already have Claude licenses, do we still need Caddi?
They cover different ground. Claude licenses are great for individual analysis, drafting, and prototyping, and Claude can even write the code for a first version of an automation. But productionizing that, running it unattended, integrated, monitored, and maintained as your tools change, is a systems-engineering job, not a prompt. Caddi automates the document- and inbox-heavy back-office work end to end, deterministically, so the two are complementary, and Caddi is the faster path to a measurable operational win.
Is Caddi cheaper than running work through Claude?
For high-volume operational work, generally yes. Claude bills per seat and consumes model tokens on each request. Caddi uses AI only at setup to understand a recorded workflow, then runs production as deterministic code, so the per-run cost is low and predictable instead of paying for a model call on every step.
Does Caddi hallucinate like a large language model?
No. Once an automation is built, Caddi runs it as deterministic code, the same inputs yield the same outputs every time, with an audit trail. Claude generates probabilistic output that can vary, which suits analysis and drafting but is risky for unattended operational runs.