This framework examines workflow, data provenance, control, and cost shape. It does not claim current competitor pricing or certification status. Public facts can change; Unknown means the available material did not establish an answer.
A conventional platform centralizes administration and reporting. An agent-native skill reduces context switching and makes natural-language tasks portable. Neither architecture is universally superior; evaluate governance and operator behavior.
A single source can simplify provenance and predictable cost. Waterfall enrichment may expand coverage while introducing provider conflicts and variable cost. Ask how every field identifies its origin.
Autonomy can increase throughput. Review gates protect relevance, regional policy, sender reputation, and brand voice. This implementation assumes people approve targeting, messaging, and sending.
Total cost can include user seats, data credits, verification, APIs, infrastructure, and operator time. Compare a representative task rather than a headline price; mark unavailable inputs Unknown.
| Dimension | Seat-based platform | Agent-native skill | Evidence to collect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Setup path | Workspace and user provisioning | Package review, run, configure | Admin steps and permissions |
| Task model | UI-defined workflows | Natural-language brief | Reproducibility of criteria |
| Data disclosure | Varies by vendor | Config-dependent | Field-level provenance |
| Human review | Varies by workflow | Required by this method | Approval event and owner |
| Export | Varies by plan | Runtime-dependent | Schema and audit notes |
| Price visibility | Unknown unless publicly verified | Inspect package/provider costs | Dated cost worksheet |
Use one ICP, one geography, one buyer responsibility, and a fixed result count. Keep it identical across evaluated approaches.
Record source, observation date, verification state, conflicts, and unknown values for each material field.
Identify who approves accounts, messages, send domains, exports, credentials, retention, and deletion.
Include seats, credits, data providers, runtime, integration effort, and operator review time.
Freeze the brief, definitions, and acceptance criteria.
Run a small sample and record every unknown or conflict.
Have an independent reviewer judge relevance without knowing the workflow.
Reconcile cost, operator time, deliverability indicators, and governance findings.
npx -y @okki-global/okki-go-taroball