How we compare
and when to choose somebody else
Four alternatives, honestly
No competitor is named on this page. The category is what matters, and naming a firm would be a worse argument than describing the category.
Every one of these four is the right answer for somebody. The useful thing a comparison page can do is say which somebody, because a page where the answer is always us is an advertisement - and each of these four wins situations we would lose.
A Big 4 or global consultancy
What they are genuinely better at
Board-level authority, a name that de-risks the recommendation internally, and the capacity to staff a large programme.
Where it costs you
The people who wrote the proposal are rarely the people who arrive, the diagnostic is priced as a programme rather than a first step, and the output is a strategy deck rather than a system in production.
What we do instead
The engineer who would do the work writes the report and answers your questions about it. The audit is a fixed, bounded piece of work you can stop after.
Choose them: When the decision needs external authority more than it needs an engineer, or when the programme is larger than a small practice should responsibly take.
A vendor's free assessment
What they are genuinely better at
It costs nothing, it arrives quickly, and it is often funded by a platform vendor who wants the licences sold.
Where it costs you
A free assessment is a qualification exercise for the assessor. Its conclusion is reliably that the assessor's platform is the answer, and it examines what you say rather than what your systems do.
What we do instead
A diagnostic that can conclude no AI work is warranted is worth paying for. One that cannot has already decided.
Choose them: When you have already chosen the platform and want help sizing the deployment.
An automation agency
What they are genuinely better at
Fast, inexpensive, and genuinely good at wiring together tools that already have APIs.
Where it costs you
The work starts at the build. Nobody establishes a baseline, so nothing can be measured afterwards, and automating a process that was already broken makes the breakage faster.
What we do instead
We redesign the broken process before automating it, and we measure the before so the after means something.
Choose them: When the process is already sound and the task is genuinely integration.
Your own internal team
What they are genuinely better at
They know your systems, your data and your politics, and whatever they build stays in the building.
Where it costs you
They are already fully committed to the roadmap you have. The first attempt pays for learning that a practice doing this repeatedly has already paid for, and the six-to-twelve month difference is usually the real cost.
What we do instead
We would rather make your team self-sufficient than become a dependency. The handover is part of the engagement, not a phase that gets cut.
Choose them: When you have capacity, an experienced lead, and time to absorb the learning curve.
What nobody in this market has built
79 firms surveyed from their live sites. The cells reading zero or one are the reason this site is the size it is.
This is not a claim about quality. It is a survey of what exists: which firms publish a whitepaper, a frameworks library, a glossary, comparison pages, free tools, a machine-readable layer, or a genuinely bilingual site. Most of the content layer above blog posts is simply empty, and it is cheap to build.
9
of 79 firms
Blog
2
of 79 firms
Programmatic city pages
9
of 79 firms
Industry landing pages
1
of 79 firms
"What is X" glossary
1
of 79 firms
Named frameworks library
3
of 79 firms
Free tools
1
of 79 firms
Comparison pages
1
of 79 firms
LLM readability layer
1
of 79 firms
Full bilingual EN/AR
0
of 79 firms
Whitepapers
0
of 79 firms
Newsletter
0
of 79 firms
Priced service catalogue
One of 79 runs a genuinely bilingual site - proper Arabic across the whole estate, not a toggle that drops you on a half-translated page. That is the largest unclaimed gap in the survey, and it is the one that matters most here: a site arguing for Arabic document intelligence in English only undercuts its own central claim, and a technical Arabic-speaking buyer notices that immediately.
Why there is no price on this site
Duration is published instead, which is the more useful signal, and it is published twice as often in this market for exactly that reason.
Of 72 published rows in the market survey, 31 carry a duration and only about fourteen carry a real price. That asymmetry is not shyness - duration signals scope and seriousness without committing a number, and buyers use it to judge whether an engagement is real.
The published floor for an assessment in this market is about 270 dollars for five business days, and if you have seen that number you are entitled to ask why ours is different. The answer is scope and it has to be concrete: interviews conducted, systems reviewed, documents sampled, volumes counted. Five business days and a template does not buy anyone counting your invoice volumes.
Pricing arrives in a written proposal, against a defined outcome, with three options to choose from. We do not bill hourly, and you know the number before the work starts.
- Readiness & Opportunity Audit
- 2-4 weeks
- Strategy & Roadmap
- 6-10 weeks
- Implementation
- 3-12 months, phased
- Governance & Advisory
- Ongoing, reviewed annually
Start here
If one of the other four is the right answer, we will say so.
That happens, and it happens in the first conversation rather than in week two. Describe the situation and you will get a straight read on it.
You get a reply within one working day, from the engineer who would do the work - not a sales sequence.