Anthropic Claude vs. Fin

If you have a sprawling legacy codebase without human subject matter expertise, Claude can be a decent option to get you through some bug triage. However, if you have a legacy codebase and no SMEs, you have bigger problems than bugs. LLMs are known for their uncanny abilities to trick a certain type of user into believing they have created something beautiful and useful, and this undercurrent of delusion runs strong through Claude.

Fin is well-suited to most use cases as long as it is trained accordingly. With a robust, well-designed knowledge base, Fin can extrapolate information from help articles and provide detailed instructions to an end user without simply sending a link to the article without context. In my experience, Fin is best suited to standard support requests. As the product becomes more complex and product types change, Fin seems less successful at accurately supporting those requests. It is best to maintain Fin's knowledge sources continuously.

• Integrates with Excel and PowerPoint - removing the need to menial task.
• Allows you to schedule tasks based on your Google Calendar and Gmail. Reminding you to action items you've discussed.
• Makes it easy to build working environments like databases or training modules without the need for IT solutions.

Incentivized

• It is very easy to train
• It does a great job of recommending answers when little context is given.
• I love the ability to create a snippet to address issues in the moment or in the long term, based on FAQs.

Incentivized

• Claude does not create graphical images
• Claude does not create Office type documents (Word, Excel, etc.)
• I would like to see Claude with more integrations points

Incentivized

• It seems some users really struggle to figure out how to escalate to a human (especially through email).
• Not excited about how "soft" resolutions still count as resolutions and are paid for. Though some abandoned cases appear to be able to be concluded as "the user got the answer they needed", there are others where they clearly didn't, because they just open up another chat (or even more), trying to get more info. This pads the resolution stats and makes it seem more effective than it actually is.
• Cost -- Fin is quite expensive. It helps us with scaling coverage, but we're not really saving money.

We have been and will be continuing our journey with Intercom and nothing too concerning has happened that I have experienced or heard of that has us on the edge yet. If it ever happens it will be something along the lines of "Outgrowing" the use of need of the platform.

Incentivized

It's pretty convenient. The interface is clear and straightforward, with no unnecessary complexity. The section covering pricing tariffs and usage limits is easy to understand.

Much improved and improving feature set, but overall navigation of the interface and platform is cumbersome. While it's worthwhile to continue building out new functionality and features, there should be some effort to make overall usage more intuitive. Becoming an admin requires either months of daily usage or more complex training.

always there

Incentivized

Fin is super quick and top notch.

Incentivized

I can get help by asking Fin questions about itself. It answers accurately, citing its own Help Center resources with visuals. It can reason and dialogue well. But when it comes to getting human support for Fin, it is not as quick. It can sometimes take a few days. They are polite and well-meaning. Some things aren't their fault (product limitations), but there was one occasion where something took a long time to resolve with lots of back and forth but it was I who found out the error in the end that they missed, so they didn't really help resolve it.

Incentivized

It was great. We were able to walk through step by step and get our questions answered along the way.

Incentivized

The implementation was surprisingly easy but we are having to adapt from our old process to work well with Intercom.

Incentivized

I still prefer GPT for conversational AI and image generation. Anthropic Claude is more of a tool to actually do something. Where GPT will get you the info you need, Anthropic Claude is much better suited to building something into your application. If I want to build a spreadsheet or if I want to turn a website into a PowerPoint presentation. I do it on Anthropic Claude.

Incentivized

Our previous support platform didn't offer an AI agent (they used it internally for their own tickets, but there were delays with shipping it to their users, i.e., us, so we migrated to Intercom). Our colleagues from different brands within our own company demoed a different chat-only tool, but it looked much less impressive than what Fin offered, so we haven't considered it either.

The product is very scalable and has helped us scale our user base and onboard 10x the users in just one month. We couldn't have done it without Fin

Incentivized

• ROI is immediate in the consulting space. We draft documents for clients often and have the ability to produce exponential output with Claude.
• Claude has allowed us to develop HTML and java code based on our requirements for a client. It has also helped identify bad code and shortened our development lifecycle
• Claude has turned into a value added platform that we rely on to verify information and provide suggestions. We look at Claude as a strategic technology partner

Incentivized

• New role opportunities — Using the “Fin-first” approach has reduced the workload for our Tier 1 team, giving them more time to focus on their own career growth. It’s also opened the door to a dedicated, AI-focused role, where a team member regularly reviews Fin’s answers and makes updates to help it perform even better.
• Enabling Fin has also reduced our response time and allowed us to meet SLA's.

Incentivized