Agentic AI Comparison:
Digits vs Stacks
vs
Introduction
This report compares Digits (digits.com), an AI-native platform for autonomous bookkeeping and accounting workflows, and Stacks (stacks.ai), a no-code AI agent builder with accounting applications for financial close and reconciliations. Metrics evaluated include autonomy, ease of use, flexibility, cost, and popularity, scored 1-10 based on available data.
Overview
Stacks
Stacks offers a no-code visual platform for building AI agents, supporting accounting teams with AI-powered close management, automated reconciliations, journal entries, and real-time analysis via integrations with Google Sheets, databases, and ERPs; it connects to 100+ tools and multiple LLMs.
Digits
Digits provides highly autonomous AI agents that automate up to 95% of bookkeeping tasks, including bank reconciliation, transaction categorization, payroll booking, and financial data cleanup, with 98% accuracy and 24/7 operation using predictive models to avoid hallucinations. It features real-time dashboards, anomaly detection, and minimal human intervention beyond exceptions.
Metrics Comparison
autonomy
Digits: 9
Runs 24/7 independently, automates 95% of workflows with 98% accuracy outperforming humans (80% accuracy, 34s vs 40ms per transaction), only surfaces exceptions for review.
Stacks: 7
Automates close management, reconciliations, and journal entries with real-time analysis, but requires user setup of workflows rather than fully independent operation.
Digits excels in hands-off, end-to-end bookkeeping autonomy; Stacks provides strong automation but needs initial configuration.
ease of use
Digits: 8
Plug-and-play setup by connecting bank, cards, and payroll; intuitive dashboards and inbox for exceptions, designed for minimal supervision.
Stacks: 9
No-code drag-and-drop visual canvas allows non-technical users to build agents quickly with plain English instructions and 100+ integrations.
Stacks edges out with true no-code accessibility; Digits is simple for accounting but more specialized.
flexibility
Digits: 7
Tailored for accounting workflows with custom predictive models, AGL, and expanding skills, but focused on bookkeeping rather than general-purpose.
Stacks: 9
Highly adaptable no-code builder supports multiple LLMs, 100+ tools, 18,000+ APIs, and custom workflows across industries including accounting.
Stacks offers broader customization and integrations; Digits is optimized but less versatile outside core accounting.
cost
Digits: 7
Pricing not explicitly stated, but positioned for accounting firms as time-saving automation replacing tedious tasks, implying competitive enterprise value without disclosed quotes.
Stacks: 5
Custom quote-based with 30-day trial; median contracts $350k-$400k yearly, per-conversation or per-resolution models, expensive for small businesses.
Digits likely more accessible for accounting-focused users; Stacks targets enterprises with high costs.
popularity
Digits: 6
Gaining traction in accounting with launches covered in industry news, outperforming human benchmarks, but niche to bookkeeping.
Stacks: 8
Featured in top AI agent lists for 2025, used in enterprises for automation across sectors with strong metrics like 70% resolution rate.
Stacks appears more broadly recognized; Digits is rising in accounting-specific contexts.
Conclusions
Digits is ideal for accounting teams seeking maximum autonomy in bookkeeping with high accuracy and minimal setup (overall score ~7.4), while Stacks suits users needing a flexible no-code platform for custom financial automations despite higher costs (overall score ~7.6). Choose based on need for specialized accounting depth vs. general AI agent building.