OpenClaw vs
computer agents
OpenClaw is a powerful self-hosted, local-first assistant gateway. Computer Agents is a managed cloud platform for always-on execution and product-grade APIs. Both are strong — for different goals.
OpenClaw
Self-hosted, local-first gateway model
- Strong self-hosting and infrastructure ownership
- Broad channel connectivity in messaging ecosystems
- Local-first control over data paths and runtime policy
- API/product embedding possible, but integration shape is gateway-centric
- Higher DevOps responsibility for production uptime/security
Best when sovereignty and channel control are top priority.
Computer Agents
Managed cloud platform
- Managed cloud execution and persistent workspaces
- Product-facing API/SDK ergonomics for SaaS features
- Native web + iOS/macOS experience
- Lower ops burden for teams that need velocity
- Less infrastructure-level sovereignty than self-hosting
Best when speed-to-production and managed operations matter most.
Key strategic differences
This is mostly a deployment and operating-model decision: managed cloud execution vs self-hosted gateway control.
Managed Cloud by Default
Computer Agents gives teams a hosted control plane, persistent environments, and production-ready execution without running their own gateway stack.
Self-Hosting Freedom (OpenClaw)
OpenClaw is ideal when you want full control of where workloads run and how channels, models, and runtime policies are configured on your own infrastructure.
Different Distribution Strategies
OpenClaw excels at channel-native personal assistant workflows. Computer Agents is stronger for app/API-first product distribution and cloud automation workflows.
Developer Productization
Computer Agents focuses on SDK/API ergonomics for SaaS builders embedding autonomous agents in customer-facing products.
Security Tradeoff
OpenClaw maximizes ownership via self-hosting. Computer Agents minimizes operational risk by handling hosting and platform operations for you.
Time-to-Value vs Control
If you optimize for speed and low ops, managed wins. If you optimize for sovereign control and channel flexibility, self-hosted can win.
Feature-by-feature comparison
Side-by-side view of deployment, execution, channels, developer workflow, and security ownership tradeoffs.
When to choose which
Choose OpenClaw if you...
- Prioritize self-hosting and infrastructure sovereignty
- Want channel-first assistant flows across messaging apps
- Have engineering time for gateway hardening and ops
- Need deep control over runtime policy and deployment topology
Choose Computer Agents if you...
- Need a managed cloud platform with low ops overhead
- Want to ship SaaS-facing agent features fast
- Need persistent execution environments and thread continuity
- Prefer official SDK workflows for TypeScript/Python teams
- Need team governance, budgeting, and hosted reliability
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between OpenClaw and openclawd?
OpenClaw is the overall platform/project. openclawd usually refers to the daemon or gateway runtime process in that ecosystem.
Which one is better for a small SaaS team shipping customer-facing AI features?
Computer Agents is generally the faster path because it includes managed cloud execution, API/SDK workflows, and less infrastructure overhead for product teams.
Which one is better if I want full infrastructure control?
OpenClaw is stronger for that goal because it is self-hosted and local-first by design, with broad channel integration options.
Can I use both together?
Yes. Many teams use a self-hosted assistant stack for internal ops and a managed cloud platform for customer-facing agent features and production workloads.
Is this an anti-OpenClaw comparison?
No. They are different architectural choices. This page is intended to clarify tradeoffs: speed and managed ops vs sovereignty and self-hosting control.
Managed speed or sovereign control?
Pick your architecture intentionally.
If your team needs to ship production agent workflows quickly, start with Computer Agents.