How fastn compares.

A fast start on the common connectors through one unified schema, which is genuinely less work than integrating each vendor separately.

Your customers' data genuinely is uniform, the standard objects cover it, and one schema across many vendors is worth more than per-customer depth.

The unified schema is the whole product and also the whole constraint. It is fixed, so a customer's custom fields, custom objects or deeper access do not fit it, and those cases fall back to your engineers. fastn is public and documented in the same way, but each customer's integration configures to their own fields and workflow, so variation never becomes your code.

Say in the deal: "What happens in Merge when a customer's custom object does not fit the schema?"

Genuinely flexible, and one of the few embedded platforms that will not fight you when a requirement is unusual.

You have a hard residency or compliance requirement that only self-hosting satisfies, and you have the team to run it.

The flexibility sits inside a box you cannot fully see into. When a customer's sync misbehaves, the diagnostic surface is limited, and the self-hosted option that solves residency also means you operate infrastructure to keep that control. fastn pairs comparable flexibility with a documented surface and per-connection health you can show a customer, with nothing to host.

Say in the deal: "When a sync breaks at 2am, what exactly do you see, and what does your customer see?"

Purpose-built for B2B SaaS rather than adapted to it, which shows throughout the product.

Your team wants to own and author the integration logic directly, and a visual builder for your engineers is what you are missing.

Prismatic gives your team a designer to build integrations in. That is a real improvement on writing them from scratch, but the long tail and the per-customer variation still route through your team building and versioning workflows. fastn makes an integration configuration rather than a build pipeline: a customer fits a connector to their own workflow inside your product, and the same layer is agent-ready when you need it.

Say in the deal: "Who does the per-customer configuration work in Prismatic, your team or your customer?"

Open source, which is real trust rather than a marketing line: you can read exactly what a connector does before depending on it.

You want open source you can inspect and fork, your team is happy owning connector code, and the integrations are for you rather than for your customers.

Every generated connector is code you now own. Generating them faster means accumulating that ownership faster, and generation speed was never really the bottleneck; maintenance is. It is also developer-first rather than embeddable self-serve for your customers. fastn's connectors are maintained on our side and live inside your product for a customer to configure.

Say in the deal: "After the agent writes connector number forty, who maintains all forty?"

A genuinely large catalog. Their public directory lists over 1,000 toolkits, which is among the broadest available to agent builders.

You are building an agent for your own team, you hold the credentials, and you want the broadest tool catalog with the least ceremony.

Composio is built for the team building an agent. fastn is built for the SaaS company whose CUSTOMERS need integrations. That shows up in the tenancy model: with an agent-tooling platform you generally hold the credentials and the agent acts as you, whereas an embedded platform gives every one of your customers their own authorised connection, isolated from the others, configured to their own fields and reachable from inside your product.

Say in the deal: "Can your customers connect and configure their own accounts, inside your product, without you deploying anything?"

An enormous component library. Their open-source monorepo carries over 3,000 app components, and being open source means you can read exactly what a component does before you rely on it.

You want to build and run automation yourself, you value open-source components you can inspect and fork, and your integrations are largely uniform across customers.

Pipedream's unit is a workflow you author and operate. fastn's unit is a connection your customer owns. That difference decides who does the work as you add customers: with a workflow platform, per-customer variation tends to become more workflows for your team to write and version, whereas an embedded layer pushes that variation into configuration the customer does themselves.

Say in the deal: "When customer number fifty wants a different field mapping, does that create work for your team or for them?"

A clear and well-argued focus on the hardest part of agent tooling, which is authorising an action on behalf of a specific human rather than running as a service account.

You are building an agent that acts on behalf of individual users and user-level authorisation is the core of your problem.

Arcade solves user-level auth for the agent you are building. fastn solves tenant-level integration for the product you are selling. If you are a SaaS company, your customers are organisations, and each one needs its own isolated connection, its own field mapping and its own audit trail, with the same connections serving both your product features and your agents.

Say in the deal: "Is the thing being authorised an individual user, or a customer organisation with many users and its own configuration?"

Real isolation. Running each MCP server in a container is a genuinely good answer to the question of what a tool can reach, and it is the thing Docker is best in the world at.

You want to self-host, you need container-level isolation for compliance reasons, or you are running MCP servers for your own internal use.

Docker MCP gives you infrastructure to run. fastn gives you a service where there is nothing to run. The consequential difference is not containers versus cloud, it is multi-tenancy: a container isolates a process, but it does not by itself give each of your customers their own authorised connection, their own field mapping, and their own audit trail. That tenancy model is what an embedded integration product needs and what you would otherwise build on top.

Say in the deal: "Who operates the servers when you have a thousand customers, each with their own credentials?"

Serious platform engineering for AI workloads, covering deployment, scaling and cost control for models in a way an integration layer does not attempt.

Your problem is deploying, scaling and governing models and agent infrastructure.

TrueFoundry's centre of gravity is the model and the infrastructure it runs on. fastn's is the connection to a customer's system. In practice these are complements rather than alternatives: you might run your agents on a platform like TrueFoundry while the integrations those agents call are per-tenant connections your customers authorised through fastn inside your product.

Say in the deal: "Is the gap in your stack about running agents, or about what those agents are allowed to reach in each customer's account?"