Intent (formerly Intent by Augment) vs Paperclip

Paperclip edges out Intent (formerly Intent by Augment) by 0.6 points (8.6 vs 8.0) -- a A-tier vs A-tier split that's narrow but real. Not a blowout; both belong on a shortlist. The score gap shows up most clearly in the categories that matter for Paperclip's strengths, so if those categories are your priority, the lead translates.

Pricing-wise, both tools have a free tier (Intent (formerly Intent by Augment) starts $0, Paperclip starts $0), so you can test either without committing. Compare what each free tier actually unlocks -- usage caps, model access, and feature gates differ a lot more than the headline price suggests, especially as both vendors have tightened limits in 2026.

By use case: pick Intent (formerly Intent by Augment) when engineering teams running mixed claude code + codex + auggie (or antigravity, grok build, opencode) workflows who want free, higher-level orchestration than writing langgraph graphs from scratch. Pick Paperclip when operators running multiple agents who need real coordination -- an indie hacker running a content shop, a small team testing autonomous-biz concepts, or anyone whose 'i'll just open another claude code tab' workflow has hit the wall. The two tools aren't fighting for the same person -- they're aiming at adjacent jobs that occasionally overlap. If you're squarely in Paperclip's lane, the tier-list ranking and the use-case fit point the same direction; if you're in Intent (formerly Intent by Augment)'s lane, the score gap matters less than the fit.

Bottom line: Paperclip is the safer default for most readers, but Intent (formerly Intent by Augment) is competitive enough that the tie-breaker is your specific workload, not the spec sheet.