Skip to content
effecthub

Decagon vs Fin

Two fact sheets from our own research, side by side — pricing, platforms, API access and status re-checked by us rather than quoted from the vendors.

The short answer

Public API
Both have one
Higher Trust score
Fin — 96 vs 84 for Decagon
Best fit
Decagon: Consumer brands with high ticket volume across chat, email and voice that need the agent to take actions in backend systems · Fin: Support teams with a large, well-maintained help centre where deflection can reach the levels the per-outcome price assumes
Platforms
Decagon: Web · Fin: Web, Slack app
Status
Both up at our last check (Sep 6, 2026)

From our own records as of each tool's last check. Anything we have not confirmed is left out rather than guessed. How we verify

DecagonEnterprise customer-service agents for chat, email and voice, configured in plain-language proceduresFinSupport agent that resolves tickets over chat, email, voice and social from your help content and connected systems, billed per outcome.

Side by side

FactDecagonFin
CategoryAI Support ChatbotsAI Support Chatbots
Pricing modelContactPaid
Starts at—$0.99/request
Public APIYesYes
Trust score84 / 10096 / 100
PlatformsWeb, APIWeb, API, Slack app
CompanyDecagon AI, Inc.Intercom, Inc.
Launched20232023
Last verifiedSep 6, 2026Sep 6, 2026

What our research says

Decagon

One of the two or three vendors a large consumer brand should shortlist for a support agent that must handle refunds, bookings and account actions rather than deflect FAQs, and the plain-language procedures plus built-in QA are what make it operable by a support team instead of engineers. It is an enterprise purchase with a sales cycle and a price that depends on your volume, so a team under a few hundred thousand conversations a year is not the customer.

Pros

  • Agent logic written as natural-language operating procedures rather than flow builders
  • Experiments, simulation testing and always-on QA ship with the agent
  • Chat, email and voice from one vendor with pre-built connectors
  • Reference customers at the scale of Deutsche Telekom, American Airlines and Square

Cons

  • No public pricing or trial; everything goes through a demo and an enterprise contract
  • Built for high-volume brands, so smaller teams are unlikely to clear the commercial threshold
  • Rapid growth and new products such as Duet mean the feature set is moving quickly
  • Governing law and a registered office are not stated in the public legal pages, only a San Francisco mailing address

Fin

Fin is the most mature of the per-resolution support agents, with three years of production use and the tooling, simulations, regression tests, QA, that teams need before letting an agent touch refunds. The $0.99-per-outcome model is attractive when deflection is high and unattractive when the agent resolves little, and the definition of an outcome is what you negotiate over. Running it on Zendesk or Salesforce avoids Intercom's seat fees but imposes a 50-outcome monthly floor; small support teams with a few hundred tickets a month should model both before signing.

Pros

  • Pays per resolved outcome rather than per seat, with a published $0.99 rate (15 October 2026)
  • Works on Intercom and on Salesforce, Zendesk, HubSpot and Freshdesk
  • Can act through Procedures, APIs, data connectors and MCP, not only answer
  • Simulation, regression testing, QA and observability tools before and after changes go live
  • 14-day trial with unlimited outcomes and no card

Cons

  • Outcome definitions and the $9.99 qualification charge make the effective price harder to model than a seat fee
  • 50-outcome monthly minimum when used with a third-party helpdesk
  • Operator, Copilot and Voice are separate charges on top of the per-outcome rate
  • Company rebrand from Intercom to Fin in 2026 means documentation and contracts still carry both names

Which one fits

Choose Decagon if you need

  • Consumer brands with high ticket volume across chat, email and voice that need the agent to take actions in backend systems
  • Support operations teams that want to own agent behaviour through written procedures and A/B tests
  • Enterprises that need simulation testing and continuous QA before letting an agent speak to customers

Choose Fin if you need

  • Support teams with a large, well-maintained help centre where deflection can reach the levels the per-outcome price assumes
  • Companies already on Intercom, or on Zendesk, Salesforce, HubSpot or Freshdesk that want an agent without switching helpdesk
  • Teams that need the agent to take actions, such as refunds or account changes, through APIs and MCP

Decagon vs Fin: the questions people ask

Is Decagon cheaper than Fin?

Fin starts at $0.99/request; Decagon prices on request, so a quote is the only way to compare.

Which has a public API, Decagon or Fin?

Both ship a public API, so either can be built on; the fact table above shows the platforms each one runs on.

More comparisons

All Fin alternatives →Browse all AI Support Chatbots →