Sensei vs. Claude
The reasoning is only as good as what it's grounded in. Sensei connects to your revenue, your traffic, your ship log, and your cohort — then writes a dated reading against them, every week.
Where they split
What grounds the reasoning
Claude
Whatever fits in the context of the current chat. You curate the evidence each time.
Sensei
Stripe revenue, Plausible sessions, Vercel deploys, your competitor set — stitched in by OAuth, cited inline.
Whose situation it knows
Claude
The session you're in. A general assistant thinking carefully about what you shared.
Sensei
A cohort of founders at your stage, your ACV, your motion. The reading frames your numbers against theirs.
What happens after the read
Claude
You close the tab. The reasoning evaporates unless you remember to save it.
Sensei
A timestamped reading with a score, a verdict, and a move. The next week's reading cites the last one.
The stack
Any AI can be brilliant when you bring the evidence. These four are what change when the evidence comes to you.
Stripe, Plausible, Vercel connect by OAuth. The reading cites your actual revenue, traffic, and ship log — inline, by number.
Monday 7am local, every week. The reading lands in the inbox before the first meeting. The ritual is the product.
Thresholds and framing come from a cohort of founders at your stage, your ACV, your motion. Not a global average.
A tracked rival set scanned every week. Sensei names who moved and what it means for your lane, without being asked.
Any one of these is nice. Stacked, it’s the product.