Skip to content
InSearch
How it works
Enterprise search software ChatGPT Enterprise pricing Coveo vs Lucidworks Dust vs GoSearch Dashworks alternatives Glean pricing Glean alternatives Microsoft Copilot alternatives Dropbox Dash pricing Guru pricing Coveo pricing Coveo alternatives Bloomfire alternatives Moveworks alternatives Claude Ask Your Org Claude Enterprise pricing Notion AI pricing Elastic Enterprise Search pricing Perplexity Enterprise pricing Copilot Studio pricing Amazon Kendra pricing Claude Team pricing Grok Business pricing Hebbia pricing Slack AI pricing Gemini Enterprise vs ChatGPT Enterprise ChatGPT Enterprise vs Copilot Amazon Quick Suite pricing Amazon Q pricing Gemini Enterprise pricing Copilot pricing Slack enterprise search Enterprise search use cases Enterprise search tools AI work assistant Knowledge base search AI enterprise search Internal company search engine Internal knowledge search Workplace search Search all company apps AI knowledge assistant Unified search Search Slack & Drive AI assistant for work Knowledge management RAG for enterprise Cited AI answers Confluence search Notion search AI for support agents Sales enablement search Engineering search Enterprise search for remote teams HR knowledge assistant Permission-aware search Secure AI search Onboarding knowledge SharePoint search Intranet search See all →
GoSearch alternatives Dust alternative Guru alternative Amazon Kendra alternative Lucidworks alternative Sinequa alternative Atlassian Rovo alternative Hebbia alternative Onyx alternative Amazon Q Business alternative Gemini Enterprise alternative Google Agentspace alternative ServiceNow Otto alternative Copilot Studio alternative SharePoint agents alternative
Security Pricing Blog Contact Sign in
Procurement manager comparing two printed vendor proposals at a desk

Compare · Microsoft Copilot Studio

Copilot Studio alternative for cited cross-app search without building an agent

Microsoft Copilot Studio is an agent builder. You use it to create custom agents, wire them to knowledge sources, publish them into Teams or a website, and govern them centrally. It is a capable low-code tool and it is the right answer if what you need is a bespoke agent that does a specific job in a specific department.

or see the comparison ↓

One search · cited answers · permission-aware

Answer Console
Your files only
Reading your files…

That request did not get through. Tap Ask InSearch again.

No account needed. Your files are read once to answer, then deleted, and never used to train any model.

A large share of the teams evaluating it want something narrower. They opened Copilot Studio because Microsoft 365 Copilot did not reach their content, and they were told an agent could fix that. Then they hit two walls. The first is scope: Copilot Studio is Microsoft-first, and grounding it in Slack, Notion or a non-Microsoft wiki means building and maintaining connections yourself. The second is cost shape. Copilot Studio is licensed tenant-wide with Copilot Credit capacity packs, and Microsoft prices those at $200.00 per pack of 25,000 Copilot Credits per month, or pay-as-you-go on what you consume. Microsoft's own description is that credits are used whenever Copilot or an agent performs a task or generates a response. That is a usage meter, and usage meters are hard to forecast before you have usage.

InSearch answers the narrower need directly. One search across Drive, Slack, Notion, Confluence, Gmail, Jira and Salesforce, a written answer with inline citations to the exact source, item-level permissions enforced at query time, and a per-seat price you can put in a budget. Nothing to build, no agent to maintain, no meter to watch.

Copilot Studio is a build-your-own agent surface, so licensing and credits decide most evaluations. The rate card, the four purchasing options and the per-employee cost of an internal agent are on Copilot Studio pricing, and the overlap with the $30 seat is unpacked in Copilot Studio versus Microsoft 365 Copilot licensing. Developers weighing the platform choice should read Copilot Studio versus Azure AI Foundry, and the Microsoft Copilot alternative covers the ready-made option.

Copilot Studio is Microsoft's low-code agent builder, licensed tenant-wide with consumption-based Copilot Credits. InSearch is the alternative for teams whose actual requirement is cross-app cited search rather than a custom agent, priced per seat with no meter.

Side by side

Microsoft Copilot Studio vs InSearch, honestly

A fair look at what each does well. Both are capable tools. Here is where they differ.

What matters InSearch Microsoft Copilot Studio
What it is A finished enterprise search product A low-code builder for creating and publishing custom agents
Time to an answer Connect your apps and ask. No build phase Design the agent, attach knowledge, test, publish and govern it
Coverage outside Microsoft Slack, Notion, Google Drive, Gmail, Jira, Confluence and Salesforce as first-class sources Microsoft-first. Non-Microsoft sources need connectors you configure and maintain
Pricing shape Per seat, published, predictable Tenant-wide license with Copilot Credit capacity packs at $200.00 per 25,000 credits per month, or pay as you go
Cost predictability Seats times price. That is the bill Depends on usage. Different actions consume different numbers of credits, so the bill moves with adoption
Governance and admin Nothing to govern beyond who has a seat Strong central governance, agent lifecycle and DLP controls. A real strength if you are running many agents
Citations Inline citations to the exact source on every answer Grounded responses with references, depending on how the agent is configured
Best suited for Teams who need the answer, not a build project Microsoft-centric organizations building a portfolio of custom agents

Comparison reflects general, publicly understood positioning. Capabilities change, so check each product for the latest.

Why teams pick InSearch

One cited, permission-aware search across every app

A builder is not a product

Copilot Studio hands you the tools. Someone still has to design the agent, connect the knowledge, test it and own it after launch. Price that person into the comparison.

Meters versus seats

Copilot Credits scale with adoption, which means the more useful the agent becomes, the more it costs. A per-seat price stays where you put it.

Answers across every app, not just Microsoft

If half your knowledge lives in Slack, Notion or Google Drive, an answer that only reaches SharePoint is only half an answer.

Good questions

Microsoft Copilot Studio vs InSearch, answered

Microsoft sells Copilot Studio as a tenant-wide license that includes Copilot Credit capacity packs of 25,000 Copilot Credits each, priced at $200.00 per pack per month. There is also a pay-as-you-go meter where you pay only for the credits you consume in a billing period. There is no simple per-user price.
Microsoft describes Copilot Credits as a flexible, usage-based system that powers Copilot experiences and agents. Credits are consumed whenever Copilot or an agent performs a task or generates a response, whether summarizing, answering a question, generating content or completing an action. Different actions consume different amounts, so heavier reasoning costs more.
They are separate products with separate licensing. Microsoft 365 Copilot is a per-user add-on at $30 per user per month on an annual commitment, while Copilot Studio is tenant-wide with credit capacity. Many organizations end up paying for both, so confirm which of your users need which before you buy.
Not out of the box the way it reaches Microsoft 365 content. Copilot Studio is Microsoft-first, and grounding an agent in non-Microsoft sources means adding and maintaining connections yourself. If most of your knowledge sits outside Microsoft 365, that build work is the real cost of the project.
Usually no. If the requirement is that people can ask a question and get a trustworthy answer from company content, a finished enterprise search product delivers that without a build phase. Agent builders pay off when you need bespoke behavior, custom actions or a workflow, not plain retrieval.
For search specifically, a focused product beats a builder. InSearch searches Drive, Slack, Notion, Confluence, Gmail, Jira and Salesforce in one query, returns an answer with inline citations to the exact source, enforces item-level permissions at query time and prices per seat with no consumption meter.

More comparisons

See how InSearch compares

vs GoSearch

GoSearch alternatives

Cited, permission-aware answers across every app.

 vs Dust

Dust alternative

Search-first, with cited answers out of the box.

 vs Guru

Guru alternative

Live search across every app, not just a curated wiki.

 vs Amazon Kendra

Amazon Kendra alternative

Kendra is in maintenance mode. Here is where to land.

 vs Lucidworks

Lucidworks alternative

Workplace search without a Kubernetes cluster to run.

 vs Sinequa

Sinequa alternative

Built for the modern SaaS stack, not a two-year rollout.

 vs Atlassian Rovo

Atlassian Rovo alternative

For companies that are not only an Atlassian shop.

 vs Hebbia

Hebbia alternative

Company-wide cited search, not finance-desk document diligence.

 vs Onyx

Onyx alternative

The same cited, permission-aware answers, fully managed and no-ops.

 vs Amazon Q Business

Amazon Q Business alternative

Still open to new customers, and permission-aware by default.

 vs Gemini Enterprise

Gemini Enterprise alternative

Cross-app cited answers without a Google Cloud project to run.

 vs Google Agentspace

Google Agentspace alternative

Agentspace became Gemini Enterprise. Here is what that means for buyers.

 vs ServiceNow Otto

ServiceNow Otto alternative

Otto absorbed Now Assist and Moveworks. Here is the focused option.

 vs SharePoint agents

SharePoint agents alternative

Twenty sources is a site bot. Company search is a different job.
See every use case

Find any answer at work with InSearch

One search across all your company apps, a clear cited answer, scoped to exactly what each person can see, and never trained on your data.

See pricing

One search across every app · cited answers · permission-aware · never trains on your data