As of October 2026, unitQ Support QA, evaluagent, Intryc, Rippit (formerly MaestroQA), Kaizo, Zendesk QA, Level AI and Lorikeet all say they score 100% of conversations automatically. Intryc also lets you choose a targeted sample. The bigger differences are whether they grade AI agents, which rubric they use and whether they sell the bot.
Last updated November 2, 2026. Written by the unitQ team. unitQ makes unitQ Support QA, one of the platforms below. We checked each vendor’s claims against its own product, pricing and integration pages in October 2026 and link them in the sources.
Every platform here uses AI to score 100% of support conversations instead of a sample. They differ in three ways: whether they grade AI agents as well as people, whether they use the same rubric for both, and whether the QA vendor also sells the AI agent it grades.
That last question is getting bigger. Gartner predicts agentic AI will autonomously resolve 80% of common customer service issues by 2029.1 If your bot vendor also writes your quality report, nobody independent checks the bot.
The short answer
unitQ Support QAbest for independent grading of Sierra, Ada, Decagon and Intercom Fin agents alongside your human teams, on as many rubrics and scorecards as your policies require.Jump to unitQ Support QA →evaluagentbest for scoring bots from several vendors (Cognigy, Sierra, Decagon) on the same standard as your human QA program.Jump to evaluagent →Intrycbest for scoring Intercom Fin, Ada and Decagon conversations as their own agent on the human scorecard, with usage-based pricing.Jump to Intryc →Rippit (formerly MaestroQA)best for a self-serve start, with a free plan and paid plans from $185 a month.Jump to Rippit →Kaizobest for Zendesk and Salesforce teams that want any vendor’s AI agent on the same scorecard as their people.Jump to Kaizo →Zendesk QAbest for teams running Zendesk’s own AI agents.Jump to Zendesk QA →Level AIbest for voice-heavy contact centers.Jump to Level AI →Lorikeetbest if you want one vendor to resolve tickets and grade them.Jump to Lorikeet →
If you only need QA for Intercom Fin, Decagon or Sierra and trust the vendor’s own reporting, their built-in tools may be enough. We cover those below.
How we evaluated
Coverage
Does it score every conversation automatically, across the channels you run?
AI agent scoring
Can it grade bot and AI agent conversations, including the failure modes bots have, such as loops, false containment and bad handoffs?
Rubric
Do you write the rubric, and can humans and AI agents be held to the same standard?
AI agent vendor support
Can it read conversations from Intercom Fin, Decagon, Sierra and other agents?
Independence
Does the QA vendor also sell the AI agent it grades?
Evidence
Does every score point back to the line in the conversation that earned it?
All entries reflect each vendor’s public pages as of October 2026. Buying under a security review? Our guide to secure support QA platforms compares the same market on PII handling, certifications and deployment.
The best AI support QA platforms, compared
1unitQ Support QA: best for independent grading of AI agents and human teams on one rubric
unitQ Support QA scores 100% of connected support conversations across chat, email, messaging, voice and IVR, through integrations including Zendesk, Salesforce Service Cloud, Intercom, Freshdesk, Kustomer, Amazon Connect and Five9.2 You write the rubric, and Testbench checks each rule against real conversations before it goes live.2 Every score links to the transcript evidence behind it.2
For AI agents, unitQ evaluates chatbot and AI performance independently of the vendor that sold the bot, covering failed intents, fallback loops, incomplete handoffs and deflection quality.2 Its bot-specific checks also cover real containment, wrong information, unwarranted escalations and inaccurate resolutions.10 unitQ doesn’t sell the agent, the platform or the labor it grades.2 Support QA grades AI agents from Sierra, Ada, Decagon and Intercom Fin.211 You can run as many rubrics and scorecards as your policies require: one shared standard for human and AI agents, or bot-specific checks for loops, false containment and handoffs.2
Evaluating AI agents? Run the bake-off on your own rubric with the AI agent POC playbook.
Best for
teams that want an independent grader for AI agents, on rubrics they own. See unitQ Support QA.
Choose it when
you run AI agents from another vendor and want a grader with no stake in the result. See what AI agent QA is and how to measure AI agent conversation quality.
The honest trade-off
pricing is quote-only, and unitQ doesn’t publish a free or self-serve plan, so Rippit and evaluagent are quicker to trial. Bot checks are configured per workspace during setup,10 so plan for rubric work before scores are meaningful.
2evaluagent: best for scoring bots from several vendors against your human standard
evaluagent says it grades bots built by Cognigy, Sierra, Decagon or in-house teams against the same standard, scored by the same engine that runs human QA, and tells buyers not to rely solely on the bot vendor’s metrics.3 Its pricing page lists AutoQM from $35 per user per month, with AI agents priced per conversation.12
Trade-offs: evaluagent bundles coaching, performance improvement plans and gamification,22 which a team focused only on bots may not need.
Best for
scoring bots from several vendors against your human standard.
Choose it when
you run more than one bot vendor and want them on one quality definition.
3Intryc: best for scoring Intercom Fin, Ada and Decagon as their own agent
Intryc says it imports AI agent conversations from Ada, Decagon and Intercom Fin under the bot’s own identity, scored on the human scorecard or a separate one.4 It scores 100% of conversations or a targeted sample, with usage-based pricing and no per-agent fees.4
Trade-offs: Intryc’s list of named AI agent sources doesn’t include Sierra on the page we checked. Its accuracy guarantee applies to eligible plans.4
Best for
scoring Intercom Fin, Ada and Decagon as their own agent.
Choose it when
Fin, Ada or Decagon carries much of your volume.
4Rippit (formerly MaestroQA): best for a self-serve start with published pricing
Rippit analyzes 100% of conversations on every plan and offers chatbot monitoring agents.513 Plans start free with 100 agent runs a month, then $185 a month for 300 runs and $495 a month for 1,000 runs, with integrations including Intercom and Decagon.5
Trade-offs: pricing is by agent runs plus AI credits, so cost scales with how many analyses you set up.5
Best for
a self-serve start with published pricing.
Choose it when
you want to start small and build your own analysis agents. See unitQ Support QA vs Rippit.
5Kaizo: best for Zendesk and Salesforce teams with AI agents from any vendor
Kaizo says that if a conversation is in Zendesk or Salesforce, it scores it on the same scorecard as your team’s, whoever built the agent, with shared criteria that keep human and AI results comparable.6
Trade-offs: coverage depends on the conversation landing in Zendesk or Salesforce.6
Best for
Zendesk and Salesforce teams with AI agents from any vendor.
Choose it when
your helpdesk is Zendesk or Salesforce and you want people and bots side by side.
6Zendesk QA: best for teams running Zendesk’s AI agents
Zendesk says AutoQA scores all interactions, including AI agents and voice, so human and AI agent scores sit together.7
Trade-offs: Zendesk also sells the AI agents it scores.14
Best for
teams running Zendesk’s AI agents.
Choose it when
your support stack is Zendesk end to end. See unitQ Support QA vs Zendesk QA.
7Level AI: best for voice-heavy contact centers
Level AI says it scores 100% of calls, chats, emails and bot conversations.8
Trade-offs: Level AI also sells AI virtual agents and says human and AI agents act from the same rubrics.15 Pricing is quote-only.
Best for
voice-heavy contact centers.
Choose it when
calls are your main channel. See unitQ Support QA vs Level AI.
8Lorikeet: best for one vendor for resolution and QA
Lorikeet’s Coach scores 100% of conversations, human and AI, with a single Ticket Quality Score.9 Automated QA is $0.30 per ticket on its Start plan, which is $2,100 a month paid annually.16
Trade-offs: Lorikeet’s own AI agent resolves tickets, so it grades its own work.16
Best for
one vendor for resolution and QA.
Choose it when
you’re buying the AI agent and want quality in the same contract.
Comparison table
| Capability | unitQ | evaluagent | Intryc | Rippit | Kaizo | Zendesk QA | Level AI | Lorikeet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Yes | Yes | Yes | Partial | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Partial | Yes | Yes | |
| Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Partial | Partial | Partial | |
| No | No | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| No | Yes | Partial | Yes | No | No | No | Yes |
All entries reflect each vendor’s public pages as of October 2026. A dash means partial or qualified; a cross means no, or not stated publicly. Open a row for the detail.
See unitQ Support QA
Run as many rubrics and scorecards as your policies require: one shared standard for in-house teams, BPOs and AI agents, or bot-specific checks for loops, false containment and handoffs.
See unitQ Support QAOr get the AI agent POC playbook.QA built into the AI agent: Fin, Decagon and Sierra
The AI agent vendors now ship their own quality tools:
- Intercom Fin: Monitors run quality assurance across Fin and human conversations, with custom scorecards.17 Monitors and Custom AI Scorecards are in the Pro add-on, from $100 a month.18
- Decagon: Watchtower reviews every interaction against your custom criteria.19
- Sierra: lists Monitors and Insights in its platform.20
These tools sit where the conversations already happen, which makes them fast to turn on. The limit is independence. The same company builds the agent, defines what a resolution is and reports the score. An independent QA platform scores the same conversations on a rubric you own, so you can check the vendor’s numbers. Our guide to questions to ask an AI support agent vendor covers what to request.
Other tools on AI QA shortlists
- IrisAgent: AutoQA grades 100% of AI and human conversations, and IrisAgent also sells the AI agent.21
FAQ
unitQ Support QA, evaluagent, Intryc, Kaizo, Level AI and Lorikeet say they can hold human and AI agents to the same standard or a shared score. Zendesk QA shows human and AI scores side by side. unitQ runs as many rubrics and scorecards as your policies require, with one shared standard or bot-specific checks such as loops and false containment.
As of October 2026, several QA tools do. Intryc names Fin, Ada and Decagon. evaluagent names Sierra, Decagon and Cognigy. Rippit integrates with Intercom and Decagon. unitQ Support QA names Sierra, Ada, Decagon and Intercom Fin, and Kaizo scores any bot logged in Zendesk or Salesforce. Each vendor also has built-in QA: Fin Monitors, Decagon Watchtower and Sierra Monitors.
Yes. Use a QA platform that doesn’t sell the bot, score its conversations on a rubric you own, then compare the results with the vendor’s dashboard. unitQ Support QA and evaluagent position themselves as independent, and Intryc, Rippit and Kaizo also grade bots they didn’t build. Lorikeet, Level AI, Zendesk and IrisAgent sell AI agents too.
Check whether the bot answered correctly, resolved the issue or only appeared to, avoided loops, escalated at the right moment and handed off with context. Also check policy and disclosure rules. Our guide on how to audit AI agent handoffs walks through the handoff checks.
When another platform is the better choice
If you want published, self-serve pricing, Rippit and evaluagent publish theirs. If every conversation already lives in Zendesk or Salesforce, Kaizo scores any bot there without another integration. If calls dominate, Level AI is built for voice. If you run only Intercom Fin and are comfortable with Intercom grading Fin, Monitors keeps everything in one place. unitQ Support QA fits best when you need a grader that doesn’t sell the agent, on a rubric that covers both your people and your bots.
For the basics, read what support QA is. If security review is your next step, see our comparison of secure support QA platforms.
Grade your AI agent on your terms
Bring a week of bot conversations. We’ll show you how unitQ Support QA scores them.
Related guides
Sources 22 references
Gartner, “Gartner predicts agentic AI will autonomously resolve 80% of common customer service issues without human intervention by 2029.” gartner.com. Accessed October 2026.
unitQ, “unitQ Support QA.” unitq.com/products/unitq-support-qa/. Accessed October 2026.
evaluagent, “AI agent observability.” evaluagent.com/ai-agents/. Accessed October 2026.
Intryc, “Best AI QA software for customer support: 2026 buyer’s guide.” intryc.com/blog/best-ai-qa-software-for-customer-support-2026-buyers-guide. Accessed October 2026.
Rippit, “Pricing.” rippit.com/pricing. Accessed October 2026.
Kaizo, “AI agent QA.” kaizo.com/solutions/ai-agent-qa/. Accessed October 2026.
Zendesk, “Quality assurance.” zendesk.com/service/quality-assurance/. Accessed October 2026.
Level AI, “Quality assurance for contact centers.” thelevel.ai/product/quality-assurance-contact-center/. Accessed October 2026.
Lorikeet, “Best AI QA tools for support.” lorikeetcx.ai/articles/best-ai-qa-tools-support. Accessed October 2026.
unitQ, “unitQ Support QA vs Rippit (formerly MaestroQA).” unitq.com/compare/unitq-support-qa-vs-rippit/. Accessed October 2026.
unitQ, “Integrations.” unitq.com/integrations/. Accessed October 2026.
evaluagent, “Pricing.” evaluagent.com/pricing/. Accessed October 2026.
Rippit, “Rippit.” rippit.com. Accessed October 2026.
Zendesk, “Pricing.” zendesk.com/pricing/. Accessed October 2026.
Level AI, “Level AI.” thelevel.ai. Accessed October 2026.
Lorikeet, “Pricing.” lorikeetcx.ai/pricing. Accessed October 2026.
Fin, “Analyze.” fin.ai/analyze. Accessed October 2026.
Intercom, “Pricing.” intercom.com/pricing. Accessed October 2026.
Decagon, “Watchtower.” decagon.ai/product/watchtower. Accessed October 2026.
Sierra, “Sierra.” sierra.ai. Accessed October 2026.
IrisAgent, “IrisAgent.” irisagent.com. Accessed October 2026.
evaluagent, “evaluagent vs Zendesk.” evaluagent.com/compare/evaluagent-vs-zendesk/. Accessed October 2026.