Rasa vs Decagon
Published September 10, 2026 · Reviewed by the Fidiora team
Rasa is a platform your own engineers use to build conversational agents, with a free Developer Edition and quoted enterprise plans. Decagon sells a finished AI customer support agent to large enterprises under quoted agreements. Choose Rasa if you want to build and control the agent. Choose Decagon if you want a vendor to deliver it.
Key takeaways
- This is a build versus buy decision more than a feature comparison.
- Rasa gives control over logic and deployment, in exchange for engineering time.
- Decagon delivers a support agent with less build effort, under an enterprise contract.
- Both need clean knowledge content and a designed handoff to people.
Rasa vs Decagon at a glance
| Criterion | Rasa | Decagon |
|---|---|---|
| What you get | A platform to build your own agents | A vendor-built AI support agent |
| Who builds it | Your engineers or a partner | Mostly the vendor, with your team |
| Commercial model | Free Developer Edition, quoted Enterprise plans | Quoted, with per-conversation or per-resolution options |
| Deployment | Self-managed or managed service | Vendor-hosted |
| Channels | Text and voice, as you build them | Chat, voice, and email |
| Control over logic | High, defined by your team | Configured within the vendor's platform |
| Typical buyer | Developer and AI product teams | Large enterprises |
| What to verify first | The engineering time to build and maintain it | How a billable conversation or resolution is defined |
What each product is
Rasa
Rasa is a platform for developer and AI product teams to build their own conversational agents, using its CALM approach that pairs language models with defined business logic.
Commercial model: A free Developer Edition for one bot with a monthly conversation limit, and quoted Enterprise plans, self-managed or as a managed service.
Best for: Companies with engineering capacity that want to own the agent's logic, hosting, and roadmap.
Decagon
Decagon builds AI support agents aimed at resolving customer conversations end to end, sold primarily to larger companies with significant volume.
Commercial model: Quoted enterprise agreements. Decagon describes both per-conversation and per-resolution pricing options.
Best for: Large enterprises that want a vendor-built AI support agent and a dedicated programme behind it.
The differences that actually matter
Build against buy
Rasa is infrastructure for building an agent. Decagon is the agent. That one difference drives cost, timeline, and ownership. With Rasa the roadmap is yours and so is the maintenance. With Decagon the vendor carries more of the build, and you depend on their roadmap and contract.
Where the cost sits
Rasa's licence can start free, but the real cost is the engineering time to design flows, connect systems, and maintain the agent. Decagon's cost sits in a quoted agreement. Compare total first-year cost, including people, not licence lines.
Billing unit
If you buy Decagon, ask whether you are on a per-conversation or per-resolution basis and how each is defined, since abandoned and handed-off conversations are where bills diverge. With Rasa there is no per-outcome vendor fee, but your hosting and model costs still scale with volume.
Vendor pricing and packaging change often. Confirm current details on Rasa and Decagon before deciding.
If you want AI that resolves support questions without building an agent or signing an enterprise contract, Fidiora is a third shape: it answers from your existing help content, goes live in under an hour, charges $0.69 per genuine resolution, dropping to $0.45 above 1,000 a month, with no seat fee, and never bills handoffs or abandoned chats.
Questions
Is Rasa or Decagon better for customer service?
Is Rasa free?
How does Decagon charge?
How do Rasa, Sierra, and Decagon compare?
Related comparisons
See Fidiora resolve a ticket in 60 seconds.
No credit card, no sales call required. Connect your docs and watch it work.
No credit card · Live in under an hour · Read the setup guide