What you are actually buying
A managed AI vendor connects the systems you already run and delivers automation across them — reading documents, classifying messages, routing decisions, with a person kept in the loop. That is a real capability and it can be bought. What it assumes is that the process already lives in a system. The part of an operation that is genuinely yours often does not: it lives in a spreadsheet, a shared mailbox, and one person's memory.
The second change, not the first delivery
The first solution usually arrives on time — that is what a delivery team is for. The cost that compounds is the one nobody scopes: what it takes to change the thing in month nine, when the rule it encodes has moved and the person who knows why is at another company.
Signals to look for
None of these is decisive on its own. Three or more together usually is.
-
The proposal names systems you do not actually have
The integration diagram shows an ERP and a CRM holding the process. Ask where the exceptions live today. If the answer is a spreadsheet, the diagram is describing a different company.
-
The integration is a person re-keying
Two systems are described as connected because somebody copies between them every morning. Automating the copy leaves the reason for the copy in place.
-
The rules move faster than the engagement
The business changes something monthly and the vendor's queue turns quarterly. That gap is where a shadow spreadsheet appears, which is how you end up with two systems again.
-
Change number two needs a statement of work
Not the build — the adjustment after it. If a threshold change is a scoping call, you have bought an outcome rather than the ability to produce outcomes.
-
Nobody internal has been named to own it
An unowned system stops changing within a year regardless of who built it. If no name has come up, that is worth resolving before the model of delivery is.
Two ways to get the same workflow
The solution shape is often identical. What differs is what it can sit on, who can change it, and what starting costs. The last row applies the same scrutiny to Bondi.
| What you are deciding | Managed AI delivery A vendor builds and operates it | Bondi You describe it, review it, and own it |
|---|---|---|
| Automating across systems you already run | Yes — this is the core of the model. Agents and workflows reach your existing tools, and the systems of record stay where they are. | Yes, and you do not have to move your data to get it: 14 connectors with typed actions and events, an HTTP node and a published SDK. A workflow can run end to end against external systems with a human step in the middle. |
| When the process has no system underneath | A layer needs something to layer onto. Where the process lives in a spreadsheet and a mailbox, that has to be built first — by somebody. | The same product builds it: tables, screens, permissions, workflows and external portals, versioned together and reviewed before they are applied. |
| Who builds it | The vendor's team, from pre-assembled building blocks configured for the use case. | You describe it and the AI Builder drafts it against your real tables, asking where the description left a decision open. An implementation partner can do the same on your behalf. |
| What it costs to start | Sold as enterprise contracts with no published price. Outcome-based terms mean the vendor carries delivery risk, which is a genuine advantage. | Published: $24 per seat per month on Standard and $49 on Pro, three-seat minimum, and the 30-day trial runs Pro capabilities on Standard quotas for up to 3 users, with no card. |
| Who changes it in month nine | The vendor, as a new piece of work. The upside is that keeping it running is not your problem; the cost is that changing it is not your decision alone. | Whoever owns the operation, as an edit reviewed and published — with Development separate from Production on Pro. |
| What you keep if it ends | Whatever was written into your systems along the way. What the logic runs on belongs to the vendor. | A dedicated PostgreSQL database per environment, with import and export, and a full SQL export of the whole database on Pro. |
| What is not included | Varies by vendor — ask directly rather than inferring it. | Bondi holds no security certification and does not borrow a provider's. SSO and SCIM are not available yet. There is no deployment on your own hardware. There is no live Postgres connection string — the Pro capability is a full SQL export, and BI read replicas are Enterprise. There are no published customer references yet. |
"Managed AI delivery" describes a category of engagement, not a specific vendor; the characteristics above are drawn from the sources listed at the end of this page. Terms vary, so ask rather than assume. The last row applies the same test to Bondi.
How to evaluate it
Five steps, in order. Each one produces something you can put in front of other people rather than an opinion you have to defend.
- 01
Ask what the solution sits on
Every AI layer reads from and writes to something. Get that named per process. Where the answer is a file somebody maintains, the layer has nothing durable underneath it and you are solving a different problem than the one you were quoted.
- 02
Price the second change, not the first build
Ask what a threshold change costs, how it is requested, and how long it takes. Compare that against the same change made by whoever owns the process. That difference, times the number of changes a year, is the real comparison.
- 03
Ask what you keep if it ends
Not the outputs already written into your systems — those are yours either way. Ask whether the logic, the data model and the ability to keep running it survive the end of the relationship, and in what form.
- 04
Try one before you sign for many
Whatever the model, build or commission a single real workflow with your own records, including the step where a person decides. A pilot you can run without a contract tells you more than a reference call.
- 05
Separate the delivery question from the platform question
Wanting somebody else to build it is a legitimate answer, and it is a different decision from what they build it on. You can have help and still own the result.
Where this leaves Bondi
Where Bondi fits
Bondi covers both halves of the decision in one subscription. Point it at the systems you already keep and it automates across them, with AI steps for the reading and a person placed where judgment is required. Point it at the process that never had a system and it builds one — the model, the screens, the permissions, the portals — reviewed before anything is applied. Either way the change after that is an edit you make rather than an engagement you commission.
- 14 connectors with 539 typed actions and 177 declared events, plus an HTTP node and a published integration SDK
- 12 resource types move through one change queue and one commit, so a column, the screen that shows it and the workflow that writes it are applied together
- The 30-day trial runs Pro capabilities on Standard quotas for up to 3 users, with no card, so a real workflow can be built before any commitment
The other half of the answer
When Bondi is the wrong answer
- Procurement requires SOC 2 or ISO certification — Bondi holds none, and does not borrow its providers'
- It has to run on your own hardware, or in a region named in a contract
- You want a vendor to carry delivery risk under an outcome-based agreement, and to operate it afterwards
- Nobody inside will own the system after launch — in that case a delivery partner is the honest answer, and the partner program exists for exactly that
If one of these describes you, the honest recommendation is somewhere else. Nothing on this page is improved by pretending otherwise.
Common questions
Is a managed AI vendor the wrong choice?
No, and a guide that said so would not be worth reading. For a large estate where the systems of record already exist, where the integration work is genuinely hard, and where nobody internal is going to own a build, buying the outcome is a reasonable decision — and outcome-based terms move real risk onto the vendor. The question is not which model is better in the abstract; it is whether the process you are automating has something durable underneath it, and who you want holding the ability to change it.
Do we have to move our data into Bondi to use the automations?
No. A workflow can start from a connector event, a schedule or an API call, read a document or classify a message with an AI step, branch on the result, suspend for a person, and write back through a typed action or the HTTP node — without a single Bondi table. Three things do need records here: PDF generation renders from a view and a record, record resolution works against your tables, and the record nodes are records by definition. A database still comes with the workspace; you simply do not have to make it your system of record.
Can we start with one workflow and expand later?
That is the usual path, and nothing about it is a migration. The same workspace that runs one integration-only workflow can later hold the tables, screens and permissions for a process that never had a system — and the two sit side by side rather than replacing each other.
What if we want somebody to build it for us anyway?
Then engage somebody, and pay attention to what they build it on. Under the partner program the customer contracts with Bondi directly and holds the account, the data, the subscription and production authority, while the partner contracts separately for the implementation. The partner seat is granted by the customer, revocable by the customer, and recorded in the security audit. You get help without the result becoming somebody else's asset.
How do we compare cost when one side has no published price?
Compare what you can model. Bondi publishes the seat price, the max(1, ceil(billable Actions / 20)) Run formula, the $0.02 over-capacity rate and the capacity packs, so your busiest month is arithmetic you can do before buying. Where a vendor's price is not published, the number to ask for is not the contract value but the cost and turnaround of the tenth change — that is what you will actually be buying repeatedly.
Sources
- Unframe — Platform checked 2026-08-23
- Unframe — Official information about Unframe checked 2026-08-23
- Unframe — Token-based pricing is broken. Outcome-based models fix it. checked 2026-08-23
- Viewpoint Analysis — Who are Unframe? checked 2026-08-23
Claims about third-party products are limited to what these documents state on the date shown. Where a document is silent, this guide describes the product's design center rather than asserting a limit.