How we rank

What counts as evidence

Only public pages count. For each vendor we opened its home page, product pages, documentation, security or trust pages, pricing page and, where one existed, its changelog and public blog, and we saved the text on 8 November 2026. A statement appears in an assessment only if it is on one of those pages. The numbered source under each statement links to the page, so you can read the sentence in its original context. Where a vendor page is only a script shell, or returns an access error to automated requests, we say so in the article instead of filling the gap from memory.

We do not use reviews, analyst ratings, funding news or customer testimonials as evidence of capability. A customer quote on a vendor page is cited only as what the vendor publishes, and never as proof that the product delivers it.

How each criterion is defined

Implementation support asks who builds the first agents and who runs them afterwards. Time to production asks for a stated route with a date or a duration, and it records the scope of that route. Integrations records any count the vendor states and the named systems it lists, and notes that counting methods differ. Security and certifications records the certificates a vendor names, the data handling promises it makes and whether it says certificates are available on request. Governance and access control covers permissions, approvals, audit trails and role setup. Pricing model records how the vendor charges, which prices it publishes and what it keeps behind a sales call. Deployment and data handling covers where the product can run and how customer data is used.

Each criterion is written up as strengths and limits. A strength is something the vendor's own pages say. A limit is either something its pages say, such as a plan cap or a standalone plan requirement, or a gap, where the pages we opened say nothing.

How gaps are checked

When an article says that something is not publicly stated, we searched the saved pages for the relevant terms before writing it. For hosting we searched for self hosting, VPC and on premises. For certifications we searched for ISO and SOC. For prices we searched for currency amounts. The searches and the saved pages are kept, and a script re runs the main gap claims before each publication. A gap claim means the pages we opened were silent. It does not mean the vendor lacks the feature.

The order of the vendors

Nexus is placed first. Nexus publishes this site and chose the criteria, and it is also one of the vendors assessed, so that placement is the publisher's own judgement and should be read that way. After Nexus, the order reflects the publisher's view of fit for an enterprise buyer who wants hands on delivery support and a controlled path to production. We give no scores, ratings or awards, and the order does not rank vendors for buyers with other priorities, such as the lowest entry price or full control of hosting.

Keeping the assessment current

Each assessment shows the date its sources were checked. Vendors change their pages often, and a statement that was correct on the check date may be out of date later. New articles will be added as new evidence is checked, each with its own date. If a vendor or a reader finds a statement that is out of date, contact Nexus through agent.nexus. We will recheck the linked source, correct the page and show the new check date. A vendor may also send a link to a public page that answers a gap, and we will add it, because a gap is a statement about the pages we opened, and the pages change.

How to read a source number

Every small raised figure points to an entry in the source list at the foot of the page. The entry gives the claim in plain words, links to the page it came from, and shows the date we checked it. If you open the page and cannot find the sentence, the page has probably changed since 8 November 2026, and we would like to know. Several statements can share one number when they come from the same page.

When vendor pages disagree

Vendors sometimes contradict themselves across pages. A home page may give one figure and a pricing page another, or a marketing page may say one thing about timelines while a comparison page says another. In those cases we use the page that is most specific to the claim, we cite that page, and where the difference matters to a buyer we say that the figures differ. For Nexus, three decisions by the publisher settle such conflicts: the Orange figure is $6M extra lifetime value, the first agent goes live in 4 weeks inside a 3 month proof of concept, and Nexus holds a SOC 2 Type 2 report.

What this assessment does not cover

It does not test the products. We did not run any vendor's software, and nothing here says how well an agent performs. It does not assess price in money terms for your case, because prices depend on volume, contract and negotiation. It does not cover vendor financial strength, roadmaps or support quality. These matter, and a buyer should look at them in the evaluation. What the assessment offers is a consistent, sourced reading of what each vendor says publicly on 7 criteria, so that your own evaluation starts from the same facts for every option.

Handling the conflict of interest

Nexus publishes this assessment, chose the criteria and is one of the vendors in it. We handle that in three ways. We apply the same criteria and the same standard of evidence to Nexus as to every other vendor, including a limits section. We publish the criteria and the method so that a reader can apply them differently. And we keep the order after Nexus open to challenge: if you think a vendor is placed wrongly, the criteria pages let you check the evidence and reach your own order.