Claritty vs Axiom.ai
Both automate websites that have no API by driving a real browser. The difference is who assembles the bot, what a run costs, and what exists afterwards.
How Axiom works
Axiom.ai is a browser automation platform built around a Chrome extension: you connect prebuilt steps visually — "click, don’t code" — or bring your own Playwright and Puppeteer scripts through its SDK, or describe what you want and have its AI builder assemble the steps. Bots run on Axiom’s hosted servers or locally through its desktop app, and it connects out to Zapier, Make, n8n, Google Sheets and the major model providers. It is a capable and mature tool for building a bot that repeats a sequence on a site.
With Axiom you end up owning a bot: a sequence of steps you assembled, that you maintain when the page changes, billed by how long it runs. With Claritty you describe the outcome, an agent handles the steps that need a decision rather than a rule, and every action it takes leaves a receipt from the provider that performed it.
Where they differ
What you are left maintaining
The automation, as something you can re-describe. Say what should be different and the steps are rewritten around it.
A bot made of steps, however it was assembled. When the page changes, the steps are what you open and fix.
Steps that need a judgment
An agent reads the actual content and decides. "Is this invoice line above the contract price?" is a step, not a condition you had to express in advance.
Steps are connected in a sequence, so a decision has to be reduced to something the sequence can branch on before it will run.
Before it does something real
A dry run shows you what it would have sent. Nothing writes, sends or pays until you approve it.
You add your own guard, a filter step, a manual approval step, or a test run before you switch it on.
What one run can cost
A hard ceiling per run, checked before each model call, measured from what was actually used. A slow site cannot make a run expensive.
Billed by runtime hours. A bot that spends its time waiting for a page bills the same as one doing work.
What exists after it acts
The provider’s own confirmation for the action, the person who approved it and the platform they approved on, and a ledger sealed so a later edit is detectable.
A run log of the steps the bot performed, which is the bot’s own account of its work.
Running it on your own machine
Claritty Studio is a free desktop app that runs automations locally with your own keys, alongside the managed service.
A desktop app that runs bots locally, offered as the private, unmetered option next to the hosted one. Genuinely comparable here.
Why Claritty instead
Each of these is something the product does today, not a direction of travel.
You describe the outcome, not the sequence
Axiom can assemble steps for you, and then those steps are yours: the thing you open when the site moves a button. Claritty keeps the description as the source of truth, so changing what it does is a sentence rather than an edit to a graph.
The judgment call is part of the automation
Deciding whether a line is overbilled, or whether a reply is needed, is a step an agent performs rather than a condition you had to anticipate. That is the point where a step-sequence usually ends in "and then someone checks it".
Nothing irreversible happens without you
A dry run shows you what it would have sent before it sends it, and a real action waits for your approval. The failure mode of a bad run is a draft you delete rather than an email your customer reads.
Every action leaves a receipt from the provider
What gets stored is the confirmation the service returned — the id it assigned — not our record that we made the call. The approval names the person who decided and where, and the ledger is sealed so an edit afterwards is detectable rather than invisible.
A run cannot quietly become expensive
Spending is capped per run and checked before each model call, so a slow page or a long list costs time rather than money. There are no runtime hours to forecast, which is the part of usage-billed automation that takes a month of watching to predict.
Your keys never reach automation code
Credentials are brokered server-side, so the automation calls a tool and the platform holds the secret. There is no key pasted into a step for someone to read later.
Questions people ask
Is Claritty an Axiom.ai alternative?
Yes, for the jobs that need a decision rather than a fixed sequence, and for anyone who would rather not own the bot. If your task is a stable set of clicks on a stable page, Axiom does that well and cheaply. If the task involves reading what is on the page and judging it, that judgment is the part Claritty takes over.
Axiom has AI and a Claude integration. What is different?
It does, and we are not claiming otherwise. The difference is what the AI is for. In Axiom it helps you assemble the steps, and the steps are then the thing that exists. In Claritty the agent is what runs the job, so the decisions happen while it works rather than being fixed in advance, and the automation is a description you can change in a sentence.
Can I use both?
Yes, and it is a reasonable split. Axiom for a scrape or a form fill that is the same clicks every time, Claritty for the work that needs reading, judgment and an approval before anything is sent. They are not competing for the same step.
I want it running on my own machine.
Both offer that. Axiom has a desktop app for local, private runs, and Claritty Studio is a free desktop app that runs automations on your machine with your own keys. If local-only is a hard requirement, either will meet it, so choose on the rest of this page rather than on that.
Describe the job. Watch it run.
Building an automation is free, and it runs on your real data so you can see whether it actually works before you pay for anything.
Start freeOr read how it works first.