Two always-on agents launched three weeks apart. Meta's Muse on 8 September, SpaceXAI's Grok Bot in beta before it. Both give the agent its own computer, its own logins, and the run of your applications. Both move you into the approver seat. The demos look interchangeable.
They are not competitors. One is built for your life and one is built for your company, and the thing that separates them is not capability — it is what each will let you hand over, and what happens when you want it back.
The short answer
- Muse for personal work. Your own accounts, your own calendar, your own money. It is the better product for that, and it is free to start.
- Grok Bot for work work. Shared tools, colleagues, client data, anything an auditor will eventually ask about. At $30 a seat it is now cheap enough that the price is no longer the reason to wait.
- Do not cross them over. The failure mode is not the agent doing something stupid. It is a personal agent holding a shared credential nobody can revoke.
At a glance
| Muse | Grok Bot | |
|---|---|---|
| Built for | One person, their own accounts | Teams, shared tools |
| Where you can get it | United States only, 18+ | No equivalent restriction |
| Entry price | Free, then $20 and $100/mo | $30/mo with SuperGrok |
| Team controls | None — no admin console, SSO, SCIM or shared agent | Enterprise: SSO, SCIM, advanced audit, customer-managed keys, dedicated data plane |
| Gate in front of the agent | Sentinel, isolated at system level, approves every outbound action | Access, network and audit controls at Enterprise |
| Parallelism | One agent working for you | Multiple Bots, shared context, running 24/7 |
| Reach | Connectors — Meta apps, Gmail, Calendar, Plaid, health | Signs in and clicks, so anything with a web UI |
Introducing Grok Bot, now in early beta. Bots are AI teammates that do real work for you. They sign in to your tools, use them just like you do, and come back with finished work.
Where they actually differ
Who the account belongs to
This is the whole thing. Muse is a single-person product: one person, their own accounts, their own VM. There is no team tier, no admin console, no SSO or SCIM, no role-based access, no audit trail built for someone other than you to read. Grok Bot has an Enterprise tier with SSO, SCIM, advanced audit controls, customer-managed encryption keys and a dedicated data plane.
That difference decides the question every client of ours eventually has to answer: when an employee leaves, what did their agent have access to, and who turns it off? Muse has no answer because it was never asked the question. That is not a flaw. It is a product boundary, and it is the right one for what Muse is.
What sits in front of the agent
Muse ships something Grok Bot does not: a separate Sentinel agent on the same VM, isolated from Muse at the system level, through which nothing reaches the internet unless it approves. Grok Bot's controls are access, network and audit controls at the Enterprise tier — real, but a different shape. They constrain where a Bot can reach; the Sentinel judges each action.
We benchmarked that judging job ourselves last weekend — classifying an agent's next action as read-only, reversible, destructive, or an attempt to move data off the machine, across 150 hand-labelled records. Two findings transfer directly. A gate has to be cheap enough to run on every single action, which means hundreds of milliseconds, not seconds. And it has to be accurate enough not to escalate everything: a well-calibrated gate in our run caught its errors while sending 8% of traffic to the slow path, while a poorly calibrated one caught errors only by escalating 92%, which is a slow path with extra steps rather than a gate.
Neither vendor publishes their gate's accuracy or its escalation rate. Until one does, "it asks before sensitive actions" is a design intention, not a measurement.
What they can reach
Both drive a browser and sign in the way a person does, which is the point — it reaches the vendor tools that never shipped an API, and in most businesses that is most of them. Muse connects to the apps one person uses and lets that person set the access level per app. Grok Bot is built around Bots that share context in threads, run in parallel, and learn a workflow by being shown it once.
Parallelism is the quiet work advantage. A personal agent doing one errand at a time is fine. A team wants six things running overnight and a summary in the morning.
What it costs
- Muse — free for most use, then $20/month, then $100/month
- Grok Bot — included with SuperGrok at $30/month, and with Cursor Pro, Pro+, Ultra and the Teams plans; Enterprise is a sales conversation
Grok Bot's entry price fell tenfold since launch, when the cheapest door was $300 a month. We had that wrong on our own site until this week and corrected it, because at $300 this was a product for a handful of teams and at $30 it is a product for most of them. Price is no longer the reason to postpone the decision.
What we know about how each one behaves under test
This is where the comparison stops being symmetrical. Reuters reported that Meta shipped Muse despite internal concerns about its handling of sensitive personal data, and that pre-launch employee testing surfaced an agent routing around its guardrails to expose a tester's private iCloud photos. Business Insider described unapproved emails being sent during internal testing, and an employee reporting "many failure modes that made it unreliable".
We have no equivalent body of reporting on Grok Bot's internal testing, and the honest reading of that is not "Grok Bot is safer" — it is that one of these companies had its pre-launch testing leak to reporters and the other did not. Neither vendor publishes what we would actually want: how often the gate fires, how often it is right, and how much traffic it escalates. Those three numbers are the whole safety story and both companies describe their architecture instead.
It does mean something for sequencing, though. If you were going to trial one of these against anything that matters, the reporting says start with the one whose failure modes have not been documented in the press, and keep the other on your own accounts until Meta publishes more than a design.
The mistake we expect people to make
Not picking the wrong one. Using the personal one at work because it is free and already on their phone.
It will work. That is the problem. Someone connects the shared inbox, or the CRM seat, or the billing portal, to an agent that lives in their personal account, under credentials the company cannot see, revoke, or audit. Nothing breaks on day one. It breaks the day that person leaves, or the day an auditor asks which systems had automated access, and the honest answer is that nobody knows.
The question to put to your team is not which agent is better. It is which system holds which logins, and whether you could answer that in writing tomorrow.
So which one
If you are one person trying to get your own life off your plate, Muse is the better product and costs nothing to try. If the work touches anyone else — colleagues, clients, shared systems, regulated data — that is Grok Bot on an Enterprise plan, or Claude Cowork and Managed Agents if your team already runs on Claude and most of your tools have connectors.
Most teams we work with will end up with both, drawn along that line, and the ones that stay out of trouble are the ones that drew it deliberately instead of discovering it later. That is the conversation we have in our agent engagements, usually before anything gets built.