Skip to content
NagentNagent
Log inSign upHire your AI team
Atlas/Lindy
Vendor dossier / Horizontal AI

Lindy

AI teammate that works across shared meetings, company tools, team channels and repeatable skills.

REVIEWED 23 SEPTEMBER 2026Marketing / Sales / CXNO HANDS-ON BENCHMARK

What it is

Official-source notesHorizontal AIscaling

Lindy describes a shared AI teammate with connected tools, memory and reusable skills. Pricing uses seat allocations within a shared credit pool, with no rollover and paused usage rather than automatic overages. [V1] [V2]

Documented means the statement is present in the cited material. Capability effectiveness, customer outcomes and security assurances have not been independently audited here.

Promoted use cases

  • Prepare research and proposals
  • Triage support requests
  • Run scheduled reports and shared team tasks

Horizontal platforms compete on how people connect company knowledge, delegate work and keep control across tools. The central question is whether a reusable workspace can become an operating process, with a named owner and a reliable path from request to approved action. A visually appealing agent builder is only one part of that decision.

Pricing and buying model

Published commercial evidence

$29.99 / user / month

Plus: 3,000 credits; Pro $99.99/15,000; Max $199.99/35,000; Enterprise custom.

Check current commercial source ↗

Budget for implementation, model and tool usage, data, human review and ongoing support. Credit units and outcome definitions differ between vendors. A missing numeric rate is marked unverified rather than replaced with an old third-party estimate.

Collaboration and governance

The pricing FAQ says external-impact changes require approval. Enterprise SSO and audit capabilities should be confirmed in the quote.

The relevant unit of control is permission to update the CRM and release approved follow-up. Inspect who can propose, approve, execute, interrupt and audit that action. Shared seats, shared content and a shared live agent session are different capabilities; require a demonstration of the one your process needs.

Evaluate memory correction, permission revocation and release control for updated instructions. An improvement loop should preserve the original evidence, proposed change, test results and named approver. A safety or security badge alone cannot establish those workflow properties.

Review and customer evidence

The public homepage displayed a G2-branded 4.9 badge when captured on 22 September 2026. The underlying review count, date and population were not independently verified, so the badge is recorded as vendor-presented evidence and is not used as a comparative score. Ask for references using the same integrations and approval rules as your team.

Before relying on a testimonial, confirm the exact product, version, package, workload and baseline. Ask a relevant customer about setup effort, failed cases, ongoing manual work and support after launch. This dossier does not convert customer logos or vendor-hosted awards into independent proof.

Focused feature documentation

Focused documentation check · Sep 2026

Shared credits and stated approval boundary

Lindy’s pricing FAQ says each paid seat contributes credits to a shared workspace pool. Unused credits do not roll over and credit-using actions pause until the next cycle if the pool runs out. The same FAQ states that outside-impact changes such as sending email, updating a ticket or publishing a document wait for approval. This is a vendor-described boundary, not a test of every connected action or retry.

Enterprise mentions SSO and audit logs, so a buyer should confirm the entitlement and export format for its quote. In a marketing pilot, have two colleagues use one task and inspect who can approve a scheduled publication, whether approval expires after a material content change, and what happens if shared credits run out between drafting and publishing. The paid-seat number is only one component of that process cost.

Primary sources: Official Lindy pricing and FAQ ↗

Published documentation and public illustrations; account behaviour was not independently tested.

Visual source

A screenshot was not captured for this entry. Open the official visual source ↗. The absence of an image does not affect the evidence status of the sourced notes.

Fit, limitations and proof requests

Editorial assessment

Lindy competes on approachable teamwork and common recurring jobs. Test the exact difference between a reusable skill, shared context and a governed multi-agent process.

Priority question: Can a team lead inspect and correct the memory influencing a scheduled task before its next run?

The evaluation owner should be a growth operations lead. Use accepted work completed across tools as the business target. Judge the solution in its own stack role: a cloud runtime, a specialist production tool and a managed AI team can be complementary purchases.

Use-case evaluation plan

Account research to approved follow-up

Give the team an account record, a current product brief and a small set of approved customer references. Ask it to identify a relevant problem, distinguish observed facts from inferred needs, and prepare a follow-up for review. Then change one source and require a second person to correct the draft without restarting the research.

Measure: source accuracy, reviewer minutes, approved follow-ups and CRM consistency.

Campaign brief to coordinated delivery

Start with one campaign objective, audience, budget constraint and brand guide. Require research, a brief, assets and a release checklist with distinct human owners. Introduce an unresolved claim midway through the process. The system should retain useful work while preventing that claim from silently propagating into every asset.

Measure: accepted assets, revision burden, approval latency and missing handoffs.

Customer insight to shared learning

Provide anonymized support themes and sales objections. Ask for a synthesized insight, a proposed campaign adjustment and a knowledge update. A marketing owner and a CX owner should review the same underlying evidence. The exercise tests cross-functional context and accountability, not merely summarization quality.

Measure: evidence coverage, disagreement resolution and reuse of approved learning.

Detailed comparison

Read the detailed Nagent vs Lindy guide for operating models, shared context, governance, cost, evidence gaps and a staged pilot.

Nagent vs Lindy

Sources and evidence register

Nagent · Multiplayer AI for growth teamsResearch: 21–29 September 2026 · Public-source analysis, no hands-on benchmark · Sources & method