KentoHQ vs Polsia: what to check before you trust an AI workforce
Polsia popularized the idea every busy owner wants: describe the work, and an AI team does it. They raised serious money and built real momentum. So why do their public reviews keep repeating one complaint?
The complaint that matters
Read Polsia's recent reviews and one pattern dominates: tasks marked complete that never actually happened — deploys that didn't deploy, content that wasn't published, credits consumed for work that has to be redone by hand. That isn't a Polsia-specific flaw; it's what happens when the same model that does the work also grades it.
The structural difference
KentoHQ was built around exactly this failure. Our agents cannot mark a task done: they must declare machine-checkable proof (a file that must exist, a command that must pass, a URL that must respond, a quality bar an independent reviewer must confirm) and the engine runs those checks — the agent has no vote. Failed checks send the work back. Tasks that can't be proven are reported honestly as not done.
Where Polsia is ahead
Honesty cuts both ways: Polsia has a bigger team, more integrations built in-house, and a longer track record at scale. If you need their specific stack and you're comfortable double-checking what "done" means, they're a serious option.
Where KentoHQ is ahead
- Proof, not promises — verification is run by the engine, not claimed by the agent.
- 60-second start — sign up, hire from a ready bench, give the first task. No workflow building.
- You hold the keys — spending, sending, and deleting wait for your approval policies.
- Self-improving — correct an agent once and it becomes a standing rule for every future task.