TODO for AI
vs 
Zapier
By Marcell Havlik, founder of TODO for AI · Updated
The largest integration network, plus Agents you can chat with on a separate activity meter. Here is where each one wins, with numbers, and who should pick which.
| Fact | Zapier | TODO for AI |
|---|---|---|
| Interface | Web, Chrome extension | Web, desktop, mobile, CLI, IDE (Zed, JetBrains, VS Code), voice |
| Models | Vendor managed | Any provider: Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok, Ollama |
| Source | Closed | Edge + CLI public |
| Starts at | Free | Free |
Key takeaways
- Models. Zapier model choice: Vendor managed. TODO for AI runs any provider, Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok or a local Ollama model, on one plan, and one model can review another's work.
- Benchmark. TODO for AI scored 95.1% on Terminal-Bench 2.1 with Opus 5.5 (own harness, 77/81 tasks, refused tasks excluded, 2026-09-30; not an official leaderboard submission).
- Price. Zapier pricing: Free 100 tasks/month, Professional from $19.99, Team from $69 per month, Enterprise custom. Agents are billed apart: Free 400 activities/month, Pro $33.33/month billed $400 annually for 1,500. TODO for AI has a free plan (Claude Sonnet only), then Starter $20, Pro $100 or Ultra $200 a month with any provider included.
- Where the work happens. Zapier gets one task done when a trigger fires. TODO for AI is one board your team and agents work through together, on your own PC, a cloud VM and your logged-in Chrome.
- Who should pick which. Pick Zapier if your work is event-driven: this happens, then that should happen. Pick TODO for AI if the work needs a shell, files, a repo or your logged-in browser.
Zapier
TODO for AI
Any providerWe are not competing for the same job
Zapier gets the task done.
TODO for AI organises the whole company’s work.
Zapier answers one question: how do I get this task done, when a trigger fires? So do the others — Cursor inside the editor, Claude Code in one person's session, Lindy by asking its assistant.
We answer a different one: where does the work live? One board per project, and a project for each part of the company — engineering, marketing, ops, finance, one per client. Your colleagues work on it. So do your agents, as many as you want to run, each with its own model, tools and permissions. Items carry the people who worked them and the agent that ran them, and the board filters by person, so what the company has in flight is one screen instead of a Slack thread.
That is not a team plan bolted onto an AI tool. It is the product. The agents are how items get closed; the board is what the company runs on.
What Zapier is, and where it stops
Zapier is the connective tissue of the SaaS world, and about 8,000 integrations is a moat nobody in this comparison is close to. If the job is "when a form is submitted, create the row, notify the channel, tag the contact", it is the correct tool and has been for a decade. Agents are the newer half: you configure one, connect its apps and knowledge, then chat with it on command or leave it running in the background.
What stays fixed is where the work happens. A Zap runs the path you wired, an Agent works through the connectors you attached, and neither ever gets a shell, a file system that persists or a session in your real Chrome. Pricing splits the same way: tasks are counted per successful action, agents draw on their own activity pool with its own plan, and the better both work the more they cost.
Connecting SaaS tools with reliable trigger-to-action plumbing.
Three reasons Zapier users look elsewhere
The Zap half needs a trigger and a path you built. Agents relax that — you can just ask one — but the wiring is still where most of Zapier's value and reliability sits.
Zap tasks on one plan, agent activities on another at 400 free or 1,500 on Pro, and MCP calls at two tasks each. Forecasting the bill means forecasting how well the automation works.
Reach ends at what an integration exposes. No shell, no file system, no logged-in browser, so a tool without a good API is simply out of scope.
Six dimensions that decide it
Zapier 13/30TODO for AI 29/30How does Zapier compare to TODO for AI, feature by feature?
| Feature | Zapier | TODO for AI |
|---|---|---|
Persistent cloud VM An always-on machine. Files, logins and sessions survive between runs. | No | Yes |
Model choice | Vendor managed | Any provider |
Cross-vendor review Review GPT output with Claude, or the other way around. | No | Yes |
Drives your real browser Chrome extension plus cloud browsers. | Agent browsing only | Yes |
Business tasks, not only code SEO, email, ads, social, CRM via CLI tools. | Whatever a connector exposes | Yes |
Any CLI as an integration | MCP, 2 tasks per call | Any binary |
Voice control | No | Yes |
People and agents on one board Colleagues and agents work the same list. Items show who contributed and which agent ran them; filter the board by person. | No | Yes |
Many agents, each configured Each agent gets its own model, prompt, tools and permissions. Pick which one takes an item. | Agents, separate plan | Unlimited, per task |
Projects for the whole company Engineering, marketing, ops, finance: separate projects and agents, one team and one bill. | Folders of Zaps | Unlimited, shared |
Team roles, pooled usage | Seats + task tiers | Roles + pooled |
Tool permissions | Basic | Allow, approve, block |
Open runtime | No | Edge + CLI public |
Same ladder, different meter
Two meters. Zaps count a task per successful action, on tiers from 100 to 2M a month; AI steps, code and MCP draw on the same pool, and one MCP tool call costs two tasks. Agents run on their own activity allowance, 400 free or 1,500 on Pro.
One pool priced in dollars of model cost, spendable on any vendor. Session and weekly windows pace it, and a 1.3-1.5x plan multiplier applies, so a $20 plan is about $15 of list-price API. Team seat prices go into one shared pool.