Threada vs. Haptik AI
Haptik delivers intent-led automation across channels. Threada is built for grounded website answers with citations, freshness controls, and hardened embeds. Here is how they differ and how to pair them.
Comparison
| Dimension | Threada | Haptik AI |
|---|---|---|
| Grounding | Hybrid RAG with refusal policy and citations | Intents, FAQs, and flows |
| Freshness | Sitemap-first crawl, IndexNow, incremental recrawl | Dependent on updated intents and knowledge |
| Analytics | Per-embed impressions, opens, chats, messages, fallback reasons | Conversation and flow analytics |
| Security | SRI, strict widget CSP, origin checks, SSO, formal threat model | Platform security; embed controls depend on setup |
| Multi-tenant | Agency friendly styling and quotas per tenant | Single brand or enterprise focus |
When Threada fits best
- Content-heavy sites need cited answers without intent modeling overhead.
- Agencies manage multiple brands and require isolated styling, quotas, and analytics.
- Security teams insist on strict CSP and origin validation for embeds.
- Ops teams want retrieval transparency to reduce hallucinations quickly.
When to lean on Haptik
- Omnichannel automation and transactional flows are priority.
- Existing investments in Haptik flows and connectors.
- Scenarios where backend actions and CRM depth are required.
Pairing both
- Deploy Threada on marketing, docs, and pricing pages for immediate cited answers.
- Keep Haptik for transactional and authenticated flows across channels.
- Route specific intents from Threada to Haptik when flows are better suited.
- Monitor Threada fallback reasons to decide which intents to model in Haptik.
Grounded answers and intent automation serve different needs. Using both keeps visitors informed while complex tasks run through purpose-built flows.