The closest thing to this on the market, at five times the entry price

CustomGPT.ai calls itself the number one no code platform for creating custom AI agents for your business, and says it transforms your business content into a specialised agent with no coding required, set up in about two minutes. Its stated ingestion range is unusual: 1,400 or more file formats and over 100 integrations, naming Google Drive, HubSpot, WordPress, Shopify, Wix and Notion, and drawing from your website, helpdesk, knowledge bases, documents, videos and podcasts. It states support for 92 languages and maintains SOC2 Type 2 compliance and GDPR adherence with access controls and encryption.

On accuracy it makes two claims worth separating. The first is a marketing claim about itself: that it is third party verified as number one for anti hallucination technology, ahead of larger companies. The second is a product behaviour, and it is the one that matters: every response has a link directly to its source, with citations and sources listed as available across all plans. That second claim is the same promise this product makes, and it is why CustomGPT is the closest comparison in this entire set.

The price list is short. Standard is $99 a month, or $89 a month billed annually, with 10 agents, 1,000 queries a month, 5,000 documents per agent, 60 million words of storage capacity, 3 team members and RAG API access. Premium is $499 a month, or $449 annually, with 25 agents, 5,000 queries a month, 20,000 documents per agent, 300 million words of storage, 5 team members, auto sync of website content, and the line that removes the Powered by CustomGPT branding. Enterprise is custom and adds forward deployed engineers, bespoke agent design, a dedicated solutions team, flexible limits, and an AI model selector that is not available below it.

Two mechanics shape the bill. Queries are counted at account level, so all your agents share one limit rather than each getting their own. And their refund policy makes clear that overage charges exist and are not refundable, without printing what an overage costs. There is a 7 day free trial covering the features of the plan you pick at signup, a credit card is required, and when the trial expires you are automatically charged for that plan. Everything above is what CustomGPT published on the checked date. Prices move, so read their pricing page and ours before deciding.

Written to be used rather than to be waved at. If any of these describe you, this is the wrong product and the rest of the page will not change that.

• Your material is not tidy. 1,400 or more file formats, over 100 integrations, and stated ingestion from helpdesks, knowledge bases, videos and podcasts is a far wider mouth than ours. We take uploaded documents in the usual office formats plus text, spreadsheets, slides and web pages, or a crawl of your own site. If your knowledge lives in twelve systems, they can reach it and we cannot.
• You have to pass a security review. SOC2 Type 2 and GDPR adherence are published on their site. We publish neither, and no amount of describing our architecture substitutes for an audit somebody else signed. This is the clearest reason on the page to buy the other product.
• You are building on top of it rather than installing it. RAG API access is on the entry plan, not held back for enterprise, and 10 agents at $99 is a sensible unit for a developer or an agency wiring retrieval into something else. There is no comparable interface here.
• You need people, not software. Enterprise adds forward deployed engineers, bespoke agent design and development, a dedicated solutions engineering and account team, and white glove onboarding. A small vendor with a published price list cannot put an engineer in your building, and pretending otherwise would be dishonest.
• You want to name the model. The AI model selector is listed as an Enterprise feature. If a policy at your end decides which model may see customer content, that requirement does not bend and we cannot meet it.

• The entry price is the whole argument. Standard is $99 a month for 1,000 queries shared across your agents. Starter here is $29 a month for 1,000 replies across three assistants at three sites each. The units are theirs and ours respectively and you should compare the definitions, but the gap is not a rounding difference.
• Taking our name off does not cost $400 a month. On their published list, Remove CustomGPT Branding sits on Premium at $499. Here it is on Starter at $29, and on every paid tier above it.
• We publish a floor as well as a citation. Below a match score you set, the request never reaches a model and the visitor receives your own wording. Their anti hallucination claim is a property of their system that you trust; this is a number you choose and can raise until the assistant is as cautious as you want.
• You can spend nothing to find out. Free is $0 for 50 replies a month with no expiry, and the 14 day trial takes no card and ends by dropping to that free tier. Their 7 day trial requires a card and charges you automatically when it finishes.
• The bill has no tail. There is no overage rate here because there is no overage, and the plan allowances are the plan. Their own refund terms confirm overage charges are billed and not refundable without naming the rate.

Read off their own site on that date, quoted narrowly. Prices and packaging in this category change often, so treat this as a snapshot and check both before you decide.

Listing this is more useful than filling it in. Every line here is something that was not clearly published, or was behind a sign-up.

• The overage rate is not published. Their refund policy states that refunds do not apply to overage charges from the prior month, which confirms overages are billed, but no figure for one appears on the pricing page.
• What counts as one query was not defined. Whether a follow up question inside the same conversation consumes another of the 1,000 is the difference between a generous allowance and a thin one.
• What the assistant does when your content does not answer the question was not described. The site claims a proportion of questions it can handle, but the behaviour at the point of failure is not stated.
• The basis of the third party anti hallucination ranking, and who performed it, was not identified on the pages read.

Which of these two is more accurate?

We cannot tell you, and anybody who claims to on a page like this is selling. Both restrict answers to your material and both attach a source. The difference we can point at is the mechanism: theirs is described as anti hallucination technology, ours is a match threshold you set that stops a weak question before it reaches a model.

Is $99 against $29 really the comparison?

For one website, yes. For an organisation feeding in 1,400 file formats from a dozen connected systems with a security review attached, no, and Standard at $99 is cheap for that. Buy on which description fits you.

Do both remove the vendor name from the widget?

Both can. Theirs is on Premium at $499 a month on the published list. Ours is on every paid tier starting at $29, with no separate white label charge at any price.

Can I get a documented API to build on?

Not in the way CustomGPT sells one. RAG API access is on their entry plan and is a genuine reason to pick them if you are building retrieval into your own software rather than putting a widget on a site.