Threada vs. Netomi AI
Netomi focuses on intent-led support automation across email, chat, and messaging. Threada is built for grounded website answers with citations, freshness controls, and hardened embeds. Here is how they compare and how to run them together.
Comparison
| Dimension | Threada | Netomi AI |
|---|---|---|
| Grounding | Hybrid RAG with refusal policy and citations | Intents, flows, and ticket automations |
| Freshness | Sitemap-first crawl, IndexNow, incremental recrawl | Syncs to knowledge sources that you configure |
| Analytics | Per-embed impressions, opens, chats, messages, fallback reasons | Conversation and ticket metrics |
| Security | SRI, strict widget CSP, origin checks, SSO, formal threat model | Enterprise platform security; embed headers depend on setup |
| Multi-tenant | Agency friendly styling and quotas per tenant | Single enterprise focus |
When Threada fits best
- Visitors need cited answers on marketing, docs, and pricing pages without opening a ticket.
- Agencies manage multiple brands and require isolated styling, quotas, and analytics.
- Security teams insist on strict CSP and origin validation for embeds.
- Ops wants retrieval transparency to reduce hallucinations quickly.
When to lean on Netomi
- Multi-channel ticket automation and agent assist are central.
- You already invested in Netomi flows and CRM integrations.
- Scenarios require deep context from existing ticket histories.
Pairing both
- Deploy Threada on public pages for grounded Q&A with citations.
- Keep Netomi for ticket automation across email, chat, and messaging.
- Route account or transactional intents from Threada to Netomi flows when authentication or tickets are required.
- Monitor Threada fallback reasons to decide which intents deserve deeper automation in Netomi.
Grounded answers reduce bounce while Netomi handles complex cases across channels. Using both keeps visitors informed and support teams productive.