It ships, not just writes
The site is online at the end of the conversation, on your own domain, with no deploy step of your own.
Looking for a Claude alternative
Claude writes the code, and it writes it well. Then the chat ends, and the machine, the domain, the deploy and the second round of changes are all yours to do. That gap between a very good answer and a thing that is actually online is the only thing this is about.
Build the booking page we sketched out, and put it on our domain.
booking page · saves enquirieslive in 4 min · $0.49
The short version
The site is online at the end of the conversation, on your own domain, with no deploy step of your own.
You do not re-paste the context every session. Say what is wrong and it knows what it built.
300+ models to pick from, each with our price on it before you spend. This is not an argument against Claude’s models — you can pick them.
| Question | Claude | Amelia’s Agent |
|---|---|---|
| What you get back | An excellent answer, and the code in the chat | A working site, online, at an address you can send to somebody |
| Who hosts it | Nobody — deploying it is yours to do | We do, on your own domain, on every plan |
| Changing it later | Paste it back in and re-explain the context | Say what is wrong with it; the project remembers itself |
| Model choice | Anthropic’s own models | 300+ models including Anthropic’s — priced per answer by us, shown before you spend |
| Published price | Pro $20 a month, or $17 a month billed annually ($200 up front) | $12 a month, or $10 billed annually — plus usage at the rate shown |
| Run it yourself for $0 | No | Yes, on your own computer with your own model keys |
The Claude column is quoted from Anthropic’s own pricing page as read on 6 September 2026: Free $0; Pro $20 a month, or $17 a month with the annual discount billed at $200 up front; Max from $100 a month; Team $25 a seat monthly, or $20 a seat billed annually. Not characterised, and not from memory — check every cell against their site. Our own figures are the ones on our pricing page.
Where they are better
For long documents, hard reasoning and any conversation that is not about shipping software, Claude is the better tool and this does not try to compete with it. Anthropic’s models are among the 300+ this runs on, so on the same model you are talking to the same thing. The comparison is not about the quality of the answer. It is about whether the answer ends up in a chat window or on your domain.
If you are still weighing it up
Type what you want on the home page — it estimates the cost before you sign in, and there is no card to start.
Questions
That is the difference this is built on. Claude writes the code and hands it to you in the chat; everything after that — a machine, a domain, a deploy — is yours to do. Amelia's Agent builds it, hosts it, and gives you an address you can send to somebody, in the same conversation.
No, and it would be a strange claim to make: Anthropic's models are among the 300+ this runs on, so on the same model you are talking to the same thing. The difference is not the answer, it is what happens to the answer — whether it ends up in a chat window or online on your domain.
Claude Pro is $20 a month, or $17 a month billed annually at $200 up front, as published on claude.com on 6 September 2026. Building plans here start at $12 a month, or $10 billed annually, and there is no card to start. The two are not quite the same purchase, though: one is an assistant subscription and one includes hosting for the sites it builds.
Yes. Anthropic's models are in the list alongside 300-odd others, and you pick per project. You do not buy them from Anthropic through us and you are not charged Anthropic's subscription price: you pay per answer at the rate our own plans set, shown on screen before you spend it. The prices quoted from claude.com on this page are there for comparison, not because we resell anything at them. Nothing here requires you to stop using the model you like.
Being a general assistant. Long documents, hard reasoning, a conversation that is not about building software at all — that is what it is for, and it is very good at it. This is narrower on purpose.