Sola and Automat are part of the same wave. Both were built from the ground up around AI and computer vision rather than retrofitting AI onto a legacy RPA codebase. Both target enterprise operations teams frustrated with UiPath, Automation Anywhere, and Blue Prism. Both use screen recording as an input method.

If you're evaluating AI-native automation platforms, these two will likely end up on your shortlist. This comparison is honest about where each platform is strong and where the models diverge.

The core difference: self-serve platform vs. managed service

This is the most important distinction and it affects everything else.

Sola is a self-serve platform. You (or your team) use Sola's tools to build, deploy, and manage automations. The platform provides AI-powered workflow generation from screen recordings, a visual builder, and enterprise controls. But you're operating the platform. Your team builds the bots. Your team monitors production. Your team handles exceptions.

Automat is a managed service. You share what you want automated (a screen recording, an SOP, a verbal description) and Automat's forward-deployed engineers build, deploy, and maintain the automation. You don't operate the platform day-to-day. Automat's team does.

Neither model is universally better. The right choice depends on your team's capacity and what you want to own.

When self-serve works well

Sola's self-serve model is a strong fit if:

• You have technically capable business users ("citizen developers") who want to build their own automations
• Your team wants hands-on control over how bots are built and modified
• You're automating a high volume of simpler, similar workflows where templatization pays off
• You prefer building internal automation capability as a competency

Sola's citizen developer angle is real. Their screen-to-bot workflow generation lowers the barrier to building automations compared to traditional RPA development environments. For organizations that want internal ownership of the automation function, this is a meaningful advantage.

When managed makes more sense

Automat's managed model is a better fit if:

• You don't have (and don't want to hire) internal automation builders
• Your highest-value workflows are complex, spanning multiple legacy systems, documents, and decision logic
• You need production-grade reliability without building an internal monitoring and maintenance team
• Speed to production matters more than building internal capability
• Your processes involve SAP, Citrix, mainframes, or other systems where technical complexity is high

The managed model means Automat's engineers act as an extension of your team. They bring domain experience from deploying automations across banking, insurance, mortgage, and manufacturing. You get production automations without the learning curve.

Technology comparison

Both platforms use computer vision and LLMs. The technical approaches are similar at the foundation level. For a deeper look at how this technology differs from legacy RPA, see our breakdown of AI RPA vs traditional RPA.

• Both generate workflows from screen recordings
• Both use AI to interact with applications visually
• Both offer self-healing capabilities when UIs change
• Both handle document processing alongside UI automation

The differences are more in the operational layer than the technical one. Automat invests heavily in production reliability, monitoring, human-in-the-loop tooling, and forward-deployed engineering support. Sola invests in the self-serve builder experience, governance controls, and citizen developer tooling.

Pricing and cost structure

Sola uses enterprise pricing (custom quotes, no public pricing page). Expect per-bot or platform-fee models similar to legacy RPA vendors, though likely at lower price points.

Automat uses usage-based pricing. You pay for what runs in production. There's no per-bot licensing or large upfront platform fees. The managed service cost replaces the cost of an internal automation team, which for most organizations represents a net savings.

The total cost comparison depends on your internal team cost. If you already have automation builders, Sola's platform cost is the primary expense. If you'd need to hire automation builders, Automat's managed service typically costs less than the team it replaces.

The question to ask yourself

The deciding factor isn't which platform has better AI (both are strong). It's what you want to own.

Do you want to build and run an internal automation function? Sola gives you the tools to do that with modern AI rather than legacy RPA.

Do you want automation outcomes without building the function? Automat delivers those outcomes as a managed service with forward-deployed engineers.

Both are legitimate approaches. Both are better than legacy RPA. The right answer depends on your organization.

Frequently asked questions

Is Sola the same as Automat but self-serve?

The underlying technology (AI vision, computer use) is similar. The delivery model is fundamentally different. Self-serve means you build and maintain. Managed means the vendor builds and maintains. This affects staffing, speed, cost structure, and accountability.

Can I start with Sola and switch to Automat later (or vice versa)?

Yes. Process knowledge transfers between platforms. Your SOPs, recordings, and operational understanding of the workflows carry over regardless of which platform executes them.

Which platform handles more complex workflows?

Both can handle complex workflows technically. Automat's managed model has an advantage for high-complexity processes (multi-system, document-heavy, lots of exception handling) because forward-deployed engineers bring experience from similar deployments across industries.