Comparison · Agentic Integration Platform

Superglue — Runtime-Generated Agentic Integration

Superglue is the closest architectural rival Naftiko has. Open-source, self-hostable in your own VPC, runtime RBAC, a complete audit record, self-healing connectors, and a price floor of zero. Concede all of it. The remaining difference is one question, and it is the only one worth arguing about: can the surface be reviewed before it runs?

Superglue →

Side by Side

At a Glance

11 dimensions of comparison between Naftiko and Superglue — same row, different layer of the stack. Scan top-to-bottom to see where each product makes a different choice on the same axis.

Dimension

Naftiko

Superglue

Where They Overlap

Both Naftiko and Superglue bet on the layer above per-vendor MCPs. Here are the 5 concrete places where those bets actually meet — same problem, sometimes the same shape, increasingly the same conversation.

Both are open source and self-hostable

Superglue runs in the customer's own VPC via Docker or Kubernetes with data residency guarantees. Naftiko's engine and linter are Apache 2.0 and self-hosted by default. Ownership and BYOC are not differentiators between us — any pitch leading with “run it in your own cloud” gets matched, at a price floor of zero.

Both refuse governance-as-an-upsell

Superglue enforces role- and table-level permissions at runtime in the free self-hosted tier. Naftiko ships linting and the declared surface at every tier. Neither of us puts the control model behind an Enterprise gate.

Both claim the agentic integration platform category outright

Superglue uses the phrase verbatim. So do we. This is a genuine category contest between two products that agree on most of the problem statement.

Both put a governed layer between the agent and the system of record

Neither of us thinks an agent should hold the upstream credential and call the vendor API directly. We disagree about what that layer is made of, not about whether it should exist.

Both treat upstream API drift as a first-class problem

Superglue detects breaks and proposes fixes automatically. Naftiko makes the surface a versioned file so drift shows up as a diff and a failing lint. Same problem, opposite instincts about who should fix it.

Where We Diverge

How Naftiko Is Different

The clearest single-sentence difference: Superglue generates the integration when the agent asks; Naftiko declares it before the agent asks. Everything else — ownership, self-hosting, audit, price — Superglue answers as well as we do, and in the case of audit and self-healing, better. The disagreement is genuinely down to one question.

There is no artifact to approve

Naftiko

The tools, fields, upstream operations and credential scope are in a file that exists before anything runs. A reviewer reads it; a linter checks it; a diff shows what changed.

Superglue

Integrations are generated at runtime from natural language. There is not even a repository to review — the surface does not exist until the agent asks for it.

This is the entire argument. It matters only where a control requires prior approval; where it does not, their approach is faster.

Detection versus prevention

Naftiko

The approval gate sees the surface. An operation the spec does not contain cannot be invoked, because the engine cannot improvise one.

Superglue

A complete audit record and runtime RBAC — real control, applied at call time and reconstructed afterwards.

Their audit is better than ours today and we should say so. The distinction is not quality of logging; it is whether the gate runs before or after.

Self-healing versus a reviewed diff

Naftiko

When an upstream API changes, the spec fails to lint and someone updates it. Slower, and the change is attributable.

Superglue

Detects the break, proposes a fix, applies it. Faster, and genuinely impressive on demo day.

Be honest about the trade: automatic repair is a better answer to downtime and a worse answer to ‘who changed what the agent can reach, and when?’

Durability versus disposability

Naftiko

Authoring is paid once and amortized across MCP, Skills and REST. The agent may well have written the draft — what matters is that it persisted and someone read it.

Superglue

Generation is paid on every run, and the generated integration is not a versioned object you keep.

Not a determinism argument. A capability can be agentic inside; the difference is that the output is durable and inspected.

Partnership Thesis

Where each one wins

Superglue is not a complement. It is a direct substitute, and the decision turns on a single question — so the useful thing we can offer is an honest account of when to buy them instead.

“If you want a working, self-hosted integration this afternoon, with self-healing maintenance and no spec to learn, you should probably buy Superglue. If a control requires that someone approve what an agent can reach before a credential is attached, there has to be something to approve — and that is the one thing a runtime generator cannot produce.”

Two First-Meeting Questions

Q1. When Superglue is the better buy

Speed to a working integration, self-healing maintenance, a strong runtime audit trail, and no requirement for prior approval of the agent's surface. Open source and self-hostable at a price floor of zero. That is a strong offer and we are not going to pretend otherwise.

Q2. When Naftiko is the better buy

Regulated, or previously burned. When the buyer's blocker is a review gate rather than delivery speed, the question becomes ‘what can this reach?’ — and answering it requires an artifact that exists before execution.

Q3. The risk we will name ourselves

“Self-healing” is a better demo than “reviewable.” Our wedge lands where prior approval is a requirement rather than a preference. Where it is only a preference, expect to lose this one.