Nexus vs Zapier: Sturdy but Brittle Automation vs Agents That Reason

---

Quick honest summary

Zapier is the default workflow automation tool for good reason. It connects 8,000+ apps, makes simple if-then workflows easy to build, and has helped millions of teams eliminate repetitive tasks. For straightforward, predictable automations, it is sturdy and reliable. There is no point pretending otherwise.

But sturdy is not the same as flexible. Workflow automation tools execute predefined rules perfectly on the structured path. They break on everything else: ambiguous inputs, exceptions, judgment calls, edge cases outside the workflow definition. They cannot hold a conversation with a customer, interpret intent behind an unclear request, or make autonomous decisions when the situation does not match any predefined branch. Every time a Zap encounters something unexpected, it either fails silently or routes to a human. The automation is sturdy. It is also brittle.

Nexus solves a different problem. It is built for what happens at every exception point: the judgment call, the data format that does not match the template, the customer request that falls outside the predefined paths. Where Zapier follows rules, Nexus agents reason. Where Zapier breaks on exceptions, Nexus agents adapt, escalate intelligently, or handle the situation within defined guardrails. Agents combine the process execution strength of automation with conversational intelligence and autonomous decision-making. They do not just replace automation rules. They replace the human judgment that automation tools require at every exception point.

The distinction matters because most enterprises have already automated the easy 10%. The remaining 90% of automatable work stays manual because rule-based automation cannot handle the variability, exceptions, and judgment those processes require. That work requires something that can hold a conversation, interpret context, and decide what to do next. That is the gap Nexus is designed to close.

But Nexus is not just a platform. It is a solution: platform plus embedded engineers plus change management. Forward Deployed Engineers (FDEs) work alongside your team from day one to identify the right use cases, build agents that fit your specific workflows, and ensure adoption sticks. Most AI vendors sell software and disappear. Nexus stays until you see measurable results.

---

Side-by-side comparison

Dimension	Zapier	Nexus
Core model	Workflow automation platform Connects 8,000+ apps with if-then rules Trigger fires, then executes predefined action sequence Sturdy on the structured path, brittle on everything else Cannot hold a conversation or interpret intent	Autonomous AI agents Complete entire workflows end-to-end Combine process execution with conversational intelligence and autonomous decision-making Reason through exceptions, adapt when reality does not match the template Replace the human judgment automation requires at every exception point
How it handles exceptions	Executes predefined rules perfectly on the structured path Breaks on ambiguous inputs, edge cases, anything outside the workflow definition Automation fails silently or errors out Error messages truncated at 250 characters Every exception routes to a human or fails	Agents reason through edge cases autonomously Handle unexpected inputs within guardrails Hold conversations to resolve ambiguity instead of failing Escalate to humans with full context when uncertain No silent failures, no dead ends
Who builds it	Anyone can set up simple Zaps Complex multi-step workflows often require a specialist Limited to roughly 100 steps Looping support is in open beta with limited capabilities No embedded engineering or change management support	Business teams build and own agents without engineering Forward Deployed Engineers (FDEs) embedded with your team from day one FDEs identify highest-impact use cases, handle integration complexity, and ensure adoption Non-technical users have built production agents Lambda's Head of Sales Intelligence built theirs without engineering support
Maintenance burden	High, and it compounds Brittleness means every edge case requires a new branch Every API change risks breaking workflows Every data format shift needs manual fixes The automation is sturdy until something changes, then it breaks Enterprises report spending more time maintaining than they save	Low Agents reason through changes instead of breaking on them No rebuild when systems update, data formats shift, or priorities change FDEs support ongoing optimization, not just initial deployment Lambda changed data sources and segmentation multiple times; the agent adapted each time
Complexity ceiling	Works well for linear, predictable tasks Falls apart when workflows require judgment, context, or dynamic decisions Cannot hold a conversation to resolve ambiguity Looping is in open beta with limited capabilities Version history added recently with rollback support	Built for complex, multi-step workflows that require judgment Cross-system intelligent decision-making Agents hold conversations, interpret intent, execute workflows, or run background automation Can combine all three in a single agent
AI capabilities	Recently added Zapier Agents and AI Copilot AI layered on top of the same trigger-action automation engine Underlying architecture still cannot hold conversations, interpret intent, or reason through exceptions Helps you build automations faster, but the automations remain rule-based	Agent-first architecture from the ground up AI is the control layer, not an add-on Agents combine process execution with conversational intelligence and autonomous decision-making Adapt when reality does not match the template Support for any AI model with zero vendor lock-in
Deployment model	Self-serve SaaS Set up Zaps yourself Troubleshoot yourself Scale yourself	Solution (platform + service) Forward Deployed Engineers embedded with your team Change management guidance Ongoing optimization Every engagement starts with a 3-month POC tied to measurable outcomes
Integrations	8,000+ app connections Pre-built triggers and actions	4,000+ enterprise integrations CRMs, ERPs, communication tools, custom APIs One agent deploys across Slack, Teams, WhatsApp, email, phone, and web simultaneously
Multi-channel deployment	Primarily connects cloud apps behind the scenes No native multi-channel agent deployment	One agent, six channels, zero code changes Deploy across Slack, Teams, WhatsApp, email, phone, and web widgets
Pricing model	Per-task pricing Costs scale with volume of actions Free plan: 100 tasks/month Professional: $29.99/month for 750 tasks Team: $103.50/month for 2,000 tasks Enterprise: custom Costs can reach $5,999/month at high volume	Per-agent pricing Pay for outcomes delivered, not tasks fired Every engagement starts with a 3-month POC Prove value before annual commitment
Enterprise support	Self-serve documentation Premier Support on Team plan and above No embedded engineering or change management	Forward Deployed Engineers embedded with your team Change management support Ongoing optimization 100% POC-to-contract conversion rate Value is proven before commitment
Security and compliance	SOC 2 Type II Enterprise features (SSO, admin controls) on higher-tier plans	SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, ISO 42001, GDPR Full audit trails and decision traceability Role-based access Every agent decision logged with data and rules that informed it
Best for	Simple, predictable, linear workflows where the structured path covers every scenario Cloud app connections Exceptions are rare enough that brittleness is not costly Volume is manageable	Complex enterprise workflows where exceptions are the norm, not the edge case Work that requires conversation, intent interpretation, and judgment Compliance requirements with full decision traceability The 90% of automatable work that rule-based tools cannot reach Organizations that want FDEs embedded, not just software shipped

---

When Zapier is the better choice

Zapier is genuinely excellent for certain use cases. When the structured path covers every scenario, its sturdiness is a real strength. Recommending Nexus where Zapier would do the job well would be bad advice:

• Your workflows are simple and linear. If the work follows a predictable pattern every time (new form submission triggers a CRM update, new email triggers a Slack notification, new row in a spreadsheet triggers an invoice), Zapier handles this reliably and cost-effectively. It was built for exactly this.

• You are connecting cloud apps with straightforward triggers. Zapier's integration breadth is a genuine strength: 8,000+ app connections. If you need App A to talk to App B when Event X happens and the logic never changes, Zapier is the right tool. Its recently added Canvas feature makes it easy to visualize and plan these automations.

• Volume is low and exceptions are rare. Brittleness only becomes costly when exceptions are frequent. When you are processing dozens or hundreds of tasks per day and edge cases almost never happen, the maintenance burden stays manageable. Per-task pricing works in your favor at lower volumes.

• You need something running in an hour, not a week. For quick, tactical automations that do not touch critical business processes, Zapier's speed to deployment is hard to beat. You can have a working automation in minutes.

• You want self-serve without an engagement model. Zapier's free tier and self-serve approach let you start immediately without talking to anyone. If you prefer to build and manage everything yourself, that model works well for straightforward use cases.

• Budget is the primary constraint. For simple automations, Zapier's free plan or Professional plan ($29.99/month) is significantly less expensive than any enterprise platform. If the work is genuinely simple, there is no reason to overspend.

---

When Nexus is the better choice

The enterprises we work with tend to share a pattern. They started with workflow automation tools like Zapier, Workato, or n8n. The simple automations worked. The tools were sturdy on the structured path. Then they hit a wall: the workflows that actually matter to the business were too complex, too exception-heavy, or too dynamic for rule-based automation to handle.

The structural limitation is always the same. Workflow automation tools execute predefined rules perfectly, but they break on everything else. They cannot hold a conversation with a customer who sends an unclear request. They cannot interpret intent when the data is incomplete. They cannot make an autonomous decision when a case requires judgment. The workflow stops or routes to a human. Every exception point requires a person, which means the automation only covers the fraction of work that never deviates from the predefined path. The automations that would deliver real financial impact required something that could combine process execution with conversational intelligence and autonomous decision-making.

• Your automations keep breaking. This is the most common pattern, and it is a direct consequence of brittleness. The automation works for the 80% case, but the 20% of exceptions generate more work than the automation saves. Someone has to monitor for failures, diagnose what went wrong (often with truncated error messages), update the workflow, and retest. The automation cannot ask a clarifying question or reason about what went wrong. It just stops. Nexus agents handle exceptions intelligently: they reason through edge cases, hold conversations to resolve ambiguity, adapt to unexpected inputs, and escalate with full context when they are uncertain.

• You have hit the ceiling on what you can automate. Most enterprises accept that roughly 90% of automatable tasks still are not automated. Not because automation tools do not exist (Zapier has been around since 2011), but because that remaining work requires conversation, intent interpretation, and judgment that rule-based tools structurally cannot provide. Nexus agents push past this ceiling because they combine process execution with the conversational intelligence and autonomous decision-making those workflows demand.

• Your workflows require judgment, not just execution. Zapier can move data between systems. It cannot hold a conversation with a customer to understand whether their inquiry is a complaint or a sales opportunity. It cannot interpret intent behind a vaguely worded support ticket to assess whether it needs urgent escalation. It cannot reason about which next step makes sense when the situation does not match any predefined path. These are not edge cases. They are the majority of real-world interactions. Nexus agents handle all of this within defined guardrails, with full decision traceability and FDE support to ensure the guardrails fit your specific business logic.

• You need agents that work where your people work. Zapier connects apps behind the scenes. Nexus agents deploy directly into Slack, Teams, WhatsApp, email, phone, and web interfaces. When AI is embedded in the tools people already use, adoption is near-automatic because employees do not have to change how they work. Orange achieved 100% adoption precisely because agents lived inside existing workflows, not in a separate tool.

• Compliance and governance are non-negotiable. Some organizations consider building agents with developer frameworks to gain more control, but that creates a permanent engineering dependency. If every decision needs an audit trail, every escalation needs to be logged, and every action needs to be traceable, Nexus is built for that from the ground up. ISO 27001, ISO 42001, SOC 2 Type II, GDPR. A multi-billion euro telecom operator chose Nexus specifically because their workflow automations could not maintain compliance across millions of interactions when regulations changed.

• You want a partner, not just software. Deploying AI at scale is 10% technology and 90% organizational change. Zapier gives you a platform and documentation. Nexus embeds Forward Deployed Engineers with your team: real engineers who help identify the highest-impact use cases, design agents that fit your specific workflows, handle integration complexity, and support adoption through change management. This is not a helpdesk. FDEs were embedded with Orange, Lambda, and every other enterprise Nexus works with from day one. It is a partnership model designed around the reality that technology alone does not drive transformation.

---

What enterprises experienced

Orange Group: automation tools could not handle the exceptions

Orange automated 120 business processes before hitting the wall every enterprise encounters with rule-based tools. As a multi-billion euro telecom with 120,000+ employees, they had tried automation tools extensively for their customer onboarding process. The tools were sturdy on the structured path: connecting systems, routing standard requests, moving data. But onboarding is inherently conversational, and the transition from rule-based tools to Nexus agents changed the outcome entirely. Customers send ambiguous requests, data arrives incomplete, edge cases do not fit the template. The automation could not hold a conversation to clarify, could not interpret what a customer actually needed, could not make a judgment call when the request fell outside predefined paths. Every exception required manual intervention, and at Orange's scale, exceptions were not the minority: they were a constant stream.

With FDEs embedded from day one, they built autonomous customer onboarding agents using Nexus. Business teams (not engineering) built them. Deployed in 4 weeks. The results: 50% conversion improvement, $4M+ incremental yearly revenue, 100% adoption, 100% compliance.

The key design: when the agent is confident, it proceeds autonomously. When uncertain, it escalates to a salesperson with full context. The salesperson reviews, adds judgment, approves or modifies, and hands off to the installer. Every step is visible. Every decision is logged. A dashboard shows all interactions. No silent failures. No broken workflows. Governance woven into the work itself.

Lambda: tried workflow automation, found it too rigid for intelligence work

Lambda, a $4B+ AI infrastructure company with 500M+ ARR, tried traditional workflow automation before transitioning to Nexus agents. This is a company with world-class AI engineers. If anyone could make workflow tools work for sales intelligence, it was Lambda.

Their Head of Sales Intelligence, Joaquin Paz, put it directly: "We looked at traditional automation. It was reliable but felt heavy, lots of hard coding. And it didn't feel intelligent. We looked at open-ended AI agents. They were smart but inconsistent. Same question, different answer every time."

The pattern is textbook "sturdy but brittle." The automation tools were reliable on the structured path but could not handle what Lambda actually needed: analyzing 12,000+ enterprise accounts annually, each generating hundreds of buying signals that required reasoning, pattern recognition, and judgment. Rule-based workflow tools could route data. They could not interpret what the data meant, make autonomous decisions about which signals mattered, or adapt when priorities shifted.

Joaquin built the system himself without engineering support. Result: 24,000+ hours of research capacity added annually (equivalent to 12 full-time analysts), $4B+ in pipeline identified, and projected $7M+ annual value by 2026.

On adaptability: "We've changed data sources, updated our account segmentation, adjusted priorities. The agent adapts. With the workflow tools we tried before, every change meant starting over."

On building without engineering: "I'm not an engineer. I built this in days. With the automation tools we looked at before, I would have needed to spec everything out and wait months for development."

A multi-billion euro telecom operator: workflow automation could not handle the compliance layer

A major European telecom (13,000+ employees, over half a billion in revenue) had workflow automations in place for support operations. Sturdy for simple routing. But the moment compliance entered the picture (audit trails, regulatory requirements, exception handling across millions of interactions), the brittleness became untenable. The automations could not interpret new regulatory requirements, could not make judgment calls about edge cases in compliance, could not adapt when the rules changed. Every regulatory change meant rebuilding workflows from scratch.

With FDEs embedded from the start, they built a coordinated suite of agents using Nexus: support, compliance, registration, data harmonization, and escalation handling. 40% of support capacity freed. Full regulatory compliance maintained across millions of interactions. 12-week deployment. When regulations change, the agents reason through the implications and adapt. No rebuild required. No compliance gaps during transitions.

---

Key differences explained

Sturdy but brittle vs. intelligent and adaptive: different architectures entirely

This is the core distinction, and it explains why enterprises hit a ceiling with workflow automation.

Zapier follows rules. If trigger X fires, execute action Y. If condition A is true, take path B; otherwise take path C. On the structured path, this is sturdy and reliable. Every possible scenario has to be anticipated and coded in advance. But the moment something falls outside the predefined paths, the system breaks. It cannot hold a conversation to clarify an ambiguous input. It cannot interpret intent behind a customer request. It cannot make an autonomous decision when the situation requires judgment. The more complex the workflow, the more branches you need. The more branches, the more maintenance. The more maintenance, the less value the automation actually delivers. Zapier's own architecture caps workflows at roughly 100 steps, with looping support still in open beta and limited in capability.

Nexus agents reason. They process information, assess context, hold conversations, interpret intent, and make decisions within defined guardrails. When they encounter something that was not explicitly planned for, they do not break. The agent evaluates the situation: can it handle this confidently? Does it need to ask a clarifying question? If it is uncertain, it escalates to a human with full context about what happened and why. FDEs work with your team to define these guardrails and escalation thresholds so agents reflect your specific business logic, not generic defaults.

This is not a criticism of Zapier. Rule-based automation works well for deterministic tasks. But when the work involves variability, judgment, or exceptions, you need a system that can think, not just follow instructions. The critical shift is that Nexus agents do not just automate the process. They replace the human judgment that workflow automation requires at every exception point. Every time a Zap routes to a person because it cannot interpret an ambiguous input, hold a conversation, or make a decision, that is a gap an agent closes autonomously.

Sturdy until something changes: the real cost of brittleness

The hidden cost of workflow automation is not the subscription. It is the maintenance that brittleness demands.

Every time a connected system updates its API, automations can break. Every time a data format changes slightly, workflows can fail. Every time a new edge case appears, someone has to build a new branch. The automation cannot reason about what changed or why. It cannot ask a clarifying question. It just stops. Debugging is difficult: Zapier truncates error messages at 250 characters, often insufficient for diagnosing complex integration issues. There is no centralized alerting framework with sophisticated routing or escalation.

Companies we work with report that maintaining automation workflows becomes a job in itself. The automation is sturdy, right up until something changes. Then it is brittle. At some point, the maintenance burden exceeds the time saved. G2 and Capterra reviews consistently cite this as a pain point once teams move beyond simple automations.

Nexus agents do not have this problem at the same scale. When a system changes, agents reason through the implications and adapt. When data arrives in a slightly different format, agents interpret it rather than failing. When an edge case appears that was never explicitly planned for, agents assess whether they can handle it or whether to escalate. FDEs support ongoing optimization as your systems and business logic evolve, so agents stay aligned with how your organization actually works. The result: dramatically lower ongoing maintenance and higher coverage of automatable work.

Lambda's experience captures this well. With their previous automation tools, "every change meant starting over." With Nexus, they have changed data sources, updated account segmentation, and adjusted priorities. The agent adapts without requiring a rebuild.

The 90% gap: why most automatable work still is not automated

Here is a number that matters: roughly 90% of automatable tasks in enterprises still are not automated. Not because automation tools do not exist (Zapier has been around since 2011), but because the remaining work requires capabilities that rule-based tools structurally cannot provide: holding conversations, interpreting intent, making autonomous decisions, adapting to exceptions without human intervention.

Enterprises automate the easy 10%: the simple, linear, never-changing workflows where the structured path covers every scenario. The remaining 90% involves ambiguous inputs, judgment calls, exceptions, and variability. This is work that requires conversational intelligence and autonomous decision-making, not just process execution. Workflow automation tools are sturdy for the 10%. They are brittle for everything else.

Nexus agents address this gap because they combine the process execution strength of automation with the intelligence those workflows demand. They handle the complexity that rule-based tools cannot reach, which is where the real business value lives. That is why Orange saw $4M+ in incremental yearly revenue. Not from automating simple tasks, but from handling the complex customer onboarding process that required conversation, judgment, and adaptation at every step.

Self-serve software vs. solution (platform + FDEs + change management)

This distinction is easy to overlook but matters enormously at scale. It is also directly connected to the brittleness problem.

Zapier is self-serve software. You sign up, build Zaps, troubleshoot issues, and scale on your own. For simple use cases, this is a feature, not a limitation. You do not need to talk to anyone to get started. But when your automations break, when exceptions pile up, when the workflow hits something ambiguous, you are on your own.

Nexus is a solution: platform plus Forward Deployed Engineers plus change management. FDEs are real engineers who embed with your team. They help identify the highest-impact use cases first (not guessing from templates), design agents that fit your specific reality (not generic configurations), define the guardrails that govern how agents handle conversations, interpret intent, and make autonomous decisions, handle integration complexity (so your team does not have to learn a new platform from scratch), and run pilots without requiring significant internal resources.

This is why Nexus's POC-to-contract conversion rate is 100%. Every engagement starts with a 3-month proof of concept tied to specific, measurable outcomes. If the POC does not deliver, you walk away. The embedded engineering model means Nexus does not convert unless it delivers measurable value.

Most enterprise AI vendors sell software and disappear. Nexus is built around the reality that deploying AI at scale is 10% technology and 90% organizational change. The technology is necessary but not sufficient. Adoption, change management, and ongoing optimization are what separate a successful deployment from an abandoned pilot. FDEs stay through all of it.

Zapier Agents vs. Nexus agents: same word, different architecture

Zapier has recently introduced its own "Agents" and AI features, including an AI Copilot that helps build automations using natural language. These are promising additions. But there is an important architectural difference, and it maps directly to the "sturdy but brittle" limitation.

Zapier's AI features are layered on top of a workflow automation engine. The underlying architecture is still triggers and actions. The AI helps you build automations faster, but the automations themselves are still rule-based workflows executing predefined steps. They still cannot hold a conversation with a user, interpret intent behind an ambiguous request, or make autonomous decisions when the situation requires judgment. Zapier Agents can make some decisions, but they inherit the platform's architectural constraints: looping still in open beta, limited error handling, roughly 100-step workflow limits. The brittleness is structural, not something an AI layer on top can solve.

Nexus is agent-first. The agent is the control layer, not an enhancement to an existing workflow engine. Agents understand business logic, hold conversations, interpret intent, reason through exceptions, make decisions within guardrails, and adapt as conditions change. They can drive multi-turn conversations, execute multi-step workflows, run background automation, or combine all three depending on what the problem requires.

This architectural difference shows up in practice. Zapier's AI features help you build automations faster. Nexus agents handle work that automation structurally cannot reach: the conversations, the judgment calls, the exceptions, the ambiguity.

---

Frequently asked questions

Can I use both Zapier and Nexus?

Yes. Several enterprises we work with still use Zapier for simple, linear automations: syncing contacts between apps, triggering notifications, moving data between tools. These are genuine Zapier strengths and there is no reason to migrate them. Nexus handles the complex, exception-heavy workflows that Zapier cannot reach: customer onboarding, support triage, compliance monitoring, sales intelligence, multi-system coordination. They solve different problems.

Is Nexus just a more expensive Zapier?

They are different categories. Zapier is workflow automation: connect apps, define rules, execute actions. Sturdy on the structured path. Nexus is autonomous AI agents paired with Forward Deployed Engineers: agents that hold conversations, interpret intent, reason through exceptions, and make autonomous decisions within guardrails. Comparing them is like comparing a calculator to an analyst. The calculator is faster for arithmetic. The analyst is what you need when the problem requires judgment. Zapier gives you software. Nexus gives you a solution: platform plus FDEs plus change management.

What about Zapier's new AI features?

Zapier has been adding AI capabilities: Agents, Copilot, AI-powered chatbots, AI Enrich in Tables. These features are a step forward for their platform. The difference is architectural and structural. Zapier's AI is layered on top of a workflow automation engine, helping you build and run automations more efficiently. But the underlying system still cannot hold a conversation, interpret intent, or make autonomous decisions. The brittleness is in the architecture, not in how quickly you can build the automation. Nexus is built agent-first: the AI is the control layer that drives the entire workflow, holds conversations, reasons through exceptions, and adapts to changing conditions. If you need smarter automation on the structured path, Zapier's AI features may be enough. If you need agents that handle the exceptions, the ambiguity, and the judgment calls that break automation, the architectural difference matters.

What if our Zapier workflows are working fine?

Then keep using them. If your automations are stable, delivering value, and not consuming significant maintenance time, the sturdiness is serving you well and there is no reason to change. Where Nexus becomes relevant is when you have important workflows that you cannot automate with Zapier because they require conversation, intent interpretation, judgment, or handling of frequent exceptions. Most enterprises have a significant backlog of work they would like to automate but cannot because it does not fit the if-then model. That backlog is where agents deliver financial impact.

How long does it take to deploy Nexus agents?

Most enterprise deployments go live within 2 to 6 weeks. Orange deployed customer onboarding agents in 4 weeks. Lambda's Head of Sales Intelligence built his system in days. A multi-billion euro telecom deployed a coordinated suite of agents in 12 weeks. Every engagement starts with a 3-month proof of concept tied to specific, measurable outcomes, so you see results before committing to an annual contract.

We have invested heavily in building Zapier workflows. Is switching disruptive?

There is nothing to switch. Your existing Zapier automations keep running for the tasks they handle well. Nexus adds a new capability layer: autonomous agents for the complex work that Zapier cannot handle. See how other workflow automation tools like Workato and UiPath face the same structural limitation. Think of it as expanding what you can automate, not replacing what already works.

How does Nexus handle governance and compliance?

Every agent decision is traceable: what data informed it, which rules applied, why it escalated or proceeded. SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, ISO 42001, and GDPR certified. Full audit trails by design, because agents operate within existing enterprise systems (Slack, Teams, CRM), and every action is logged. A multi-billion euro telecom operator chose Nexus specifically because their previous automation tools could not maintain compliance across millions of interactions. With Nexus, compliance is woven into the work itself, not bolted on afterward.

What are Forward Deployed Engineers and why does that matter?

FDEs are real engineers who embed with your team during deployment and stay through adoption. They are not a helpdesk. They work alongside you to identify the highest-impact use cases, design agents that fit your specific workflows, define guardrails for how agents hold conversations, interpret intent, and make autonomous decisions, handle integration complexity, and ensure adoption sticks through change management. This matters because deploying AI at scale is 10% technology and 90% organizational change. Lambda, Orange, and every other enterprise Nexus works with had FDE support from day one. It is a core part of how Nexus delivers results, not an add-on.

---

Worth exploring?

If your automation tools are sturdy on the structured path but brittle on everything else. If the maintenance burden is growing. If exceptions keep breaking your workflows. If the work that would deliver real financial impact requires conversation, judgment, and autonomous decision-making that rule-based tools cannot provide. It might be worth seeing how Orange, Lambda, and other enterprises made the shift from automation rules to agents that reason.

Every engagement starts with a 3-month proof of concept tied to specific outcomes. Forward Deployed Engineers embed with your team from day one. You see measurable results before committing, and you can exit anytime.

---

Related comparisons

• Nexus vs Workato -- The enterprise automation comparison: rigid workflow orchestration vs. intelligent agents
• Nexus vs n8n -- Open-source automation vs. autonomous agents for enterprise workflows
• Nexus vs UiPath -- RPA vs. AI agents: scripted bots vs. agents that reason
• Nexus vs Microsoft Copilot -- AI assistants vs. autonomous agents: helps individuals vs. completes workflows
• AI Agents vs Workflow Automation -- The full category comparison: why enterprises are moving beyond if-then automation
• Back to all comparisons -->