Decagon vs Lorikeet
A side-by-side comparison of Decagon and Lorikeet, two Support tools, drawn from Ignaite's continuously-verified listings.
Compared from listings verified as of
At a glance
| Attribute | Decagon | Lorikeet |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Support | Support |
| Pricing | PAID | PAID |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Deployment | Cloud | Cloud |
| Platforms | Web, API | Web, API |
| Model support | Multi-model | Multi-model |
| Vendor (differs) | Decagon | Lorikeet |
| Capabilities (differs) |
|
|
The honest brief
Decagon
Prices per conversation or resolution, not per seat, and lets ops teach agents via natural-language procedures.
- Outcome-based pricing
- Ops author logic, engineers keep guardrails
- Chat, email, and voice
- Takes actions, not just answers
- Enterprise sales-only
- Setup and tuning required
- Model choice abstracted away
Lorikeet
Its Intelligent Graph runs workflows deterministically — built for regulated finance/health where free-form bots fail.
- Deterministic workflow graph
- Chat, email, and voice support
- Real actions via Zendesk/Stripe
- Built for regulated industries
- Paid, enterprise-oriented
- No transparent public pricing
- Heavier setup than simple bots
When to pick which
Both cover Voice agent and Ticket deflection.
Pick Decagon if you need Email assistant.
- Email assistant (secondary capability)
Pick Lorikeet if you need Trigger-action automation and Conversation intelligence.
- Trigger-action automation (secondary capability)
- Conversation intelligence (secondary capability)
Lorikeet leans on Voice agent as a headline capability; Decagon treats it as secondary.
- Voice agent (primary capability)