Gravity and Dust both live under the AI agent banner, but they are built for different jobs. Dust is an enterprise platform for building AI assistants grounded in your company's data, the documents, conversations, and tools your organization already runs on. Gravity is a pay-per-use marketplace where you run expert-built task agents on demand without building anything. One equips your team to build assistants over your knowledge; the other delivers finished outcomes per run. This is an honest comparison, including the cases where Dust is the better choice.

It belongs to the same set as Gravity vs Coze and the wider survey of agent platforms with the best integrations. If you are evaluating the enterprise end of the market, read those alongside this.

The fundamental split

Dust is a platform for building and deploying AI assistants across an organization. Its center of gravity is your company's data: it connects to the tools you already use, such as Slack, Notion, Google Drive, and code repositories, and lets your team build assistants that answer from and act on that internal knowledge. The assistants are administered centrally and made available to staff, typically on a per-seat basis. The value Dust creates is making a company's own information usable through AI, which is a real and substantial problem for any organization whose knowledge is scattered across a dozen apps.

Gravity starts from a different unit of value: the finished task. Instead of building an assistant over your knowledge base, you describe an outcome and run an expert-built agent that delivers it in about 60 seconds. There is no assistant to configure, no data to connect, no seats to assign. You pay per run. The agents are built and hardened by domain experts, gated by a quality bar, and monitored in production, so the reliability is the platform's responsibility. The trade is clear: Dust gives you a customizable assistant grounded in your data; Gravity gives you a finished result without building or maintaining anything.

That difference, an assistant layer over your knowledge versus on-demand task execution, drives everything else in the comparison.

Feature comparison

DimensionDustGravity
Core modelBuild AI assistants on your company dataRun expert-built agents on demand
Primary userTeams and enterprisesOutcome-first users and teams
Center of valueInternal knowledge and connectorsFinished, bounded tasks
Setup effortConnect data, configure assistantsDescribe the outcome, run in ~60 seconds
Pricing shapePer-seat subscriptionPay-per-use credits, no subscription
ReliabilityWhat your team configures and testsEnforced 80-test quality bar plus monitoring
Builder earningsInternal-build platform20% of every run, paid to the builder
Best forCompany-wide knowledge assistantsDependable, on-demand task automation

Where Dust shines

Dust is a strong product for a specific, valuable problem: turning an organization's scattered knowledge into something staff can actually use. If your pain is that the answer to every question lives in a different app, and you want assistants that draw on your real internal context rather than generic web knowledge, Dust is built for exactly that. Its connectors to the common workplace tools are the heart of it, and the per-seat model fits an organization rolling AI out to a whole team with central administration.

It also suits teams that want to build and own their assistants. Dust gives you the platform to design assistants tuned to your workflows, grounded in your data, and shaped by people who know your business. For an enterprise whose competitive context lives in its own documents and conversations, that grounding is the point, and a marketplace of generic task agents does not replace it. If your goal is a company-wide AI layer over your internal knowledge, Dust is the right category, and Gravity is not competing for that job.

Where Gravity shines

Gravity wins when the unit you care about is a finished task, not a standing assistant. Three differences carry the comparison. The first is no build and no maintenance: you do not connect data sources or configure an assistant, you describe what you need and an expert-built agent runs it. The second is the pricing shape. Dust's per-seat model charges per user per month whether or not a given person uses it, which is the same idle-seat problem behind every subscription. Gravity charges per run: one dollar equals a thousand credits, you pay for the runs you make, and nobody pays for an unused seat, the reasoning laid out in choosing credits over subscriptions.

The third is reliability you did not have to engineer. On a build-it-yourself platform, an assistant is as dependable as your team's configuration and testing. On Gravity, every agent clears an 80-test quality bar and is monitored in production, so dependability is built in rather than assembled. There is also a builder angle: Gravity pays builders 20 percent of every run, turning domain expertise into recurring income tied to real usage, the builder economy a marketplace makes possible. And because cost tracks runs, not headcount, Gravity fits the per-task ROI measurement enterprises increasingly favor, the trend documented in enterprise agent adoption.

It is worth being precise about data, because that is where the two platforms diverge most. Dust's whole proposition rests on connecting to your internal knowledge, which means granting it broad, standing access to your documents and conversations so its assistants can draw on them. That is exactly what makes Dust valuable for a knowledge assistant, and it is also a larger surface to govern. Gravity's task agents are scoped to the job at hand rather than wired into your entire knowledge base, so the access an agent needs is bounded to the run it performs. Neither approach is universally safer, they are different trade-offs: Dust trades a wider data footprint for richer internal grounding, while Gravity trades that grounding for a smaller, per-task access surface. Which trade-off you want depends on whether the value you need comes from your own data or from a finished outcome.

How to choose

The decision comes down to the unit of value you are buying. If you want a company-wide assistant layer grounded in your internal knowledge, administered centrally and used daily across a team, choose Dust. It is purpose-built for connecting an organization's data into assistants, and the seat model matches a broad internal rollout. That is a genuine need a task marketplace does not serve.

If you want bounded tasks done dependably and on demand, paid only when you use them, without building or maintaining anything, choose Gravity. You describe the outcome, a quality-gated expert agent runs it in about a minute, and your cost tracks usage rather than headcount. And the two are not mutually exclusive: a sensible setup runs Dust as the internal knowledge assistant and Gravity for on-demand task execution, because they solve adjacent problems rather than the same one. Map your need to the unit of value, knowledge access or finished tasks, and the right tool is obvious. For more of the landscape, the other head-to-head comparisons place the rest of the market around these two.

FAQ

What is the difference between Gravity and Dust?
Dust is an enterprise platform for building AI assistants grounded in your company's data, connected to tools like Slack, Notion, and Google Drive, and sold per seat. Gravity is a pay-per-use marketplace where you run expert-built task agents on demand without building anything.
Who is Dust best for?
Teams and enterprises that want company-wide AI assistants grounded in internal knowledge. Dust shines when the value is connecting an organization's documents, conversations, and tools into assistants staff use daily, with central administration and per-seat access.
Who is Gravity best for?
People and teams who want bounded tasks done on demand without building or maintaining an assistant. You describe an outcome, an expert-built agent runs it in about 60 seconds, and you pay only for the runs you make.
How do Gravity and Dust price differently?
Dust uses per-seat subscriptions, so you pay per user per month regardless of usage. Gravity uses pay-per-use credits, where one US dollar equals one thousand credits, with no seats and no monthly minimum, so cost tracks actual usage rather than headcount.
Does Dust connect to my company's data?
Yes, that is a core strength. Dust connects to common workplace tools and data sources so its assistants can answer from and act on internal knowledge. Gravity focuses on running bounded task agents on demand rather than building a persistent assistant over your whole knowledge base.
Can I use both Gravity and Dust?
Yes, and many organizations will. Dust can serve as the company-wide knowledge assistant layer while Gravity handles bounded, on-demand tasks paid per use. They solve adjacent problems, so using both is a reasonable setup.

Sources