Compare approaches
Paybond vs route allowlists
Allowlists decide which routes and methods an agent may call. They do not reserve spend, verify completion, or run release and refund against a funded intent.
Paybond vs Route allowlists
Focused slice of the comparison matrix for delegated agent spend.
Route allowlists comparisonSwipe to compare columns
| Dimension | Paybond Kit | Route allowlists |
|---|---|---|
Delegation model Who can spend what, under which scope, and for how long. | Capability-scoped intent with bounded budget, allowed operations, and tenant-bound run binding. | Route and method allowlists; upstream API keys — no spend delegation or outcome scope. |
Evidence Proof that paid work completed and matches the agreed completion rule. | Signed completion evidence with preset validation, receipts, and ledger provenance. | Request and response logs; no outcome verification against a spend agreement. |
Settlement lifecycle Fund, authorize, execute, release, refund, or hold for review. | Funded intent → authorize tool spend → submit evidence → release, refund, review, or dispute. | Traffic routing only; no escrow, release, or refund state machine. |
Disputes Structured path when outcomes, amounts, or completion disagree. | Built-in dispute cases, evidence export, refund flows, and operator review workspace. | Not provided. |
Cross-runtime Same spend controls across agent frameworks and orchestrators. | Tool boundary across OpenAI, Claude, LangGraph, MCP, and custom orchestrators with one policy file. | Per-service proxy configuration; not aware of agent tool semantics. |
Secrets exposure Where payment, tenant, and authorization credentials live at runtime. | Capability token bound to intent; tenant ID never taken from unauthenticated tool arguments. | Proxy layer holds upstream API keys; agents still need direct credentials for many vendors. |
Related guides
Deeper write-ups that match this approach comparison.