| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Starting Price | — | $25/mo |
| Capabilities | 9 decomposed | 15 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Converts plain English prompts into executable blockchain transactions by parsing user intent, identifying target smart contracts or protocols, and generating properly formatted transaction payloads. The system likely uses an LLM to interpret semantic meaning from natural language, maps identified operations to blockchain ABIs or protocol specifications, and outputs signed or unsigned transaction objects ready for submission to on-chain execution. This eliminates manual construction of contract call parameters, function selectors, and encoded arguments.
Unique: Bridges LLM reasoning with blockchain execution by mapping natural language intent directly to contract ABIs and protocol specifications, rather than requiring users to manually construct Web3.js calls or understand Solidity function signatures.
vs alternatives: Reduces friction compared to traditional Web3 libraries (ethers.js, web3.py) by eliminating the need to learn contract ABIs, function selectors, and parameter encoding, though at the cost of transparency and formal verification.
Automates multi-step DeFi workflows (token swaps, liquidity provision, staking, borrowing) by decomposing high-level user intent into a sequence of smart contract interactions. The system likely maintains a registry of supported protocols (Uniswap, Aave, Curve, etc.), understands their state-dependent execution order, and chains transactions together with appropriate state validation between steps. This enables users to describe complex operations like 'swap ETH for USDC, then deposit into Aave' as a single natural language prompt.
Unique: Chains multiple smart contract calls into a single logical workflow by understanding protocol dependencies and state transitions, rather than requiring users to manually sequence transactions or use lower-level orchestration frameworks.
vs alternatives: Simpler than building custom orchestration with Hardhat or Brownie, but lacks the formal verification and gas optimization that specialized DeFi routers (1inch, Paraswap) provide through algorithmic routing.
Translates semantic user intent into properly encoded smart contract function parameters by parsing natural language, identifying the target contract function, and generating correctly formatted ABI-encoded arguments. The system maintains a mapping between human-readable operation descriptions (e.g., 'swap 1 ETH for USDC') and contract function signatures (e.g., 'swapExactETHForTokens(uint amountOutMin, address[] path, address to, uint deadline)'), then encodes parameters according to Solidity type specifications. This eliminates manual parameter construction and type conversion errors.
Unique: Automatically maps natural language intent to contract function signatures and generates properly encoded parameters, eliminating manual ABI lookup and Solidity type conversion that typically requires developer expertise.
vs alternatives: More accessible than manual Web3.js parameter construction, but less transparent than explicit parameter specification in code, creating a tradeoff between ease-of-use and auditability.
Validates generated transactions against current blockchain state before submission by checking preconditions (sufficient balance, token approvals, contract state assumptions) and estimating execution outcomes. The system queries the blockchain for relevant state (account balances, allowances, contract variables), simulates transaction execution (likely via eth_call or similar), and flags potential failures or unexpected outcomes. This prevents submission of transactions that would revert on-chain, saving gas fees and reducing failed execution attempts.
Unique: Proactively simulates transaction execution against current blockchain state before submission, catching precondition failures and unexpected outcomes that would otherwise result in wasted gas or failed operations.
vs alternatives: More user-friendly than manually checking balances and allowances in a block explorer, but less comprehensive than formal verification tools (Certora, Mythril) that analyze contract code for logical flaws.
Integrates with Web3 wallet providers (MetaMask, WalletConnect, Ledger, etc.) to request user signatures for generated transactions without exposing private keys to the EasyPrompt backend. The system constructs unsigned transaction objects, passes them to the wallet provider's signing interface, and receives signed transactions ready for blockchain submission. This maintains wallet security by keeping key material isolated while enabling seamless transaction execution flow.
Unique: Maintains wallet security by delegating transaction signing to external wallet providers rather than handling key material, while still enabling seamless transaction generation and execution flow.
vs alternatives: More secure than in-app key management, but requires users to have pre-existing wallet setup and manually approve each transaction, unlike centralized platforms that can batch or automate approvals.
Executes read-only blockchain queries (balance checks, contract state inspection, transaction history) based on natural language descriptions without requiring users to write Web3 code or understand contract ABIs. The system parses user intent, identifies the relevant contract function or blockchain data source, constructs the appropriate RPC call (eth_call, eth_getBalance, etc.), and returns human-readable results. This enables users to inspect blockchain state and gather information needed for transaction decisions using plain English.
Unique: Translates natural language queries into blockchain RPC calls and contract reads, eliminating the need for users to understand contract ABIs or write Web3 code for state inspection.
vs alternatives: More accessible than block explorers or Web3 libraries for casual queries, but less comprehensive than specialized blockchain indexing services (The Graph, Alchemy) for complex or historical data.
Estimates transaction gas costs and suggests optimizations to reduce fees by analyzing generated transactions and comparing alternative execution paths. The system calculates gas requirements based on transaction complexity, current network conditions (gas price, base fee), and provides cost estimates in fiat currency. It may also suggest optimizations like batching operations, using different protocols, or timing transactions for lower gas periods. This helps users understand and minimize the financial cost of blockchain interactions.
Unique: Proactively estimates and optimizes gas costs by analyzing transaction complexity and suggesting alternative execution paths, rather than just showing final gas estimates after transaction construction.
vs alternatives: More user-friendly than manually checking gas prices on block explorers, but less sophisticated than specialized gas optimization tools (MEV-aware routers, batch transaction services) that can achieve significant savings through advanced techniques.
Routes transactions across multiple blockchains (Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, Solana, etc.) by identifying the optimal chain for a given operation based on factors like gas costs, liquidity, and protocol availability. The system maintains a registry of supported chains and protocols, evaluates execution costs and outcomes across chains, and routes the transaction to the most efficient option. This enables users to execute operations on the cheapest or fastest chain without manually evaluating cross-chain options.
Unique: Automatically evaluates and routes transactions across multiple blockchains based on cost and liquidity, rather than requiring users to manually switch networks or compare chain-specific options.
vs alternatives: More convenient than manually evaluating chains, but less comprehensive than specialized cross-chain routers (Across, Connext) that optimize for speed and security in addition to cost.
+1 more capabilities
Automatically inspects tabular data sources (Google Sheets, Airtable, Excel, CSV, SQL databases) to extract column names, infer field types (text, number, date, checkbox, etc.), and create bidirectional data bindings between UI components and source columns. Uses declarative component-to-column mappings that persist schema changes in real-time, enabling components to automatically reflect upstream data structure modifications without manual rebinding.
Unique: Glide's approach combines automatic schema introspection with declarative component binding, eliminating manual field mapping that competitors like Airtable require. The bidirectional sync model means changes to source column structure automatically propagate to UI components without developer intervention, reducing maintenance overhead for non-technical users.
vs alternatives: Faster to initial app than Airtable (which requires manual field configuration) and more flexible than rigid form builders because it adapts to evolving data structures automatically.
Provides 40+ pre-built, data-aware UI components (forms, tables, calendars, charts, buttons, text inputs, dropdowns, file uploads, maps, etc.) that automatically render responsively across mobile and desktop viewports. Components use a declarative binding syntax to connect to spreadsheet columns, with built-in support for computed fields, conditional visibility, and user-specific data filtering. Layout engine uses CSS Grid/Flexbox under the hood to adapt component sizing and positioning based on screen size without requiring manual breakpoint configuration.
Unique: Glide's component library is tightly integrated with data binding — components are not generic UI elements but data-aware objects that automatically sync with spreadsheet columns. This eliminates the disconnect between UI and data that exists in traditional form builders, where developers must manually wire component values to data sources.
vs alternatives: Faster to build than Bubble (which requires manual component-to-data wiring) and more mobile-optimized than Airtable's grid-centric interface, which prioritizes desktop spreadsheet metaphors over mobile-first design.
Glide scores higher at 70/100 vs EasyPrompt at 38/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Enables multiple team members to edit apps simultaneously with role-based access control. Supports predefined roles (Owner, Editor, Viewer) with different permission levels: Owners can manage team members and publish apps, Editors can modify app design and data, Viewers can only view published apps. Team member limits vary by plan (2 free, 10 business, custom enterprise). Real-time collaboration on app design is not mentioned, suggesting changes may not be synchronized in real-time between editors.
Unique: Glide's team collaboration is built into the platform, meaning team members don't need separate accounts or complex permission configuration — they're invited via email and assigned roles directly in the app. This is more seamless than tools requiring external identity management.
vs alternatives: More integrated than Airtable (which requires separate workspace management) and simpler than GitHub-based collaboration (which requires version control knowledge), though less sophisticated than enterprise platforms with audit logging and approval workflows.
Provides pre-built app templates for common use cases (inventory management, CRM, project management, expense tracking, etc.) that users can clone and customize. Templates include sample data, pre-configured components, and example workflows, reducing time-to-first-app from hours to minutes. Templates are fully editable, allowing users to modify data sources, components, and workflows to match their specific needs. Template library is curated by Glide and updated regularly with new templates.
Unique: Glide's templates are fully functional apps with sample data and workflows, not just empty scaffolds. This allows users to immediately see how components work together and understand app structure before customizing, reducing the learning curve significantly.
vs alternatives: More complete than Airtable's templates (which are mostly empty bases) and more accessible than building from scratch, though less flexible than code-based frameworks where templates can be parameterized and generated programmatically.
Allows workflows to be triggered on a schedule (daily, weekly, monthly, or custom intervals) without manual intervention. Scheduled workflows execute at specified times and can perform batch operations (process pending records, send daily reports, sync data, etc.). Execution time is in UTC, and the exact scheduling mechanism (cron, quartz, custom) is undocumented. Failed scheduled tasks may or may not retry automatically (retry logic undocumented).
Unique: Glide's scheduled workflows are integrated with the workflow engine, meaning scheduled tasks can execute the same complex logic as event-triggered workflows (conditional logic, multi-step actions, API calls). This is more powerful than simple scheduled email tools because scheduled tasks can perform data transformations and cross-system synchronization.
vs alternatives: More integrated than Zapier's schedule trigger (which is limited to simple actions) and more accessible than cron jobs (which require server access and scripting knowledge), though less transparent about execution guarantees and failure handling than enterprise job schedulers.
Offers Glide Tables, a proprietary managed database alternative to external spreadsheets or databases, with automatic scaling and optimization for Glide apps. Glide Tables are stored in Glide's infrastructure and optimized for the data binding and query patterns used by Glide apps. Scaling limits are plan-dependent (25k-100k rows), with separate 'Big Tables' tier for larger datasets (exact scaling limits undocumented). Automatic backups and disaster recovery are mentioned but details are undocumented.
Unique: Glide Tables are optimized specifically for Glide's data binding and query patterns, meaning they're tightly integrated with the app builder and don't require separate database administration. This is more seamless than connecting external databases (which require schema design and optimization knowledge) but less flexible because data is locked into Glide's proprietary format.
vs alternatives: More managed than self-hosted databases (no administration required) and more integrated than external databases (no separate configuration), though less portable than standard databases because data cannot be easily exported or migrated.
Provides basic chart components (bar, line, pie, area charts) that visualize data from connected sources. Charts are configured visually by selecting data columns for axes, values, and grouping. Charts are responsive and adapt to mobile/tablet/desktop. Real-time updates are supported; charts refresh when underlying data changes. No custom chart types or advanced visualization options (3D, animations, etc.) are available.
Unique: Provides basic chart components with automatic real-time updates and responsive design, suitable for simple dashboards — most visual builders (Bubble, FlutterFlow) require chart plugins or custom code
vs alternatives: More integrated than Airtable's chart view because real-time updates are automatic; weaker than BI tools (Tableau, Looker) because no drill-down, filtering, or advanced visualization options
Allows users to query data using natural language (e.g., 'Show me all orders from last month with revenue > $5k') which is converted to structured database queries without SQL knowledge. Also includes AI-powered data extraction from unstructured text (emails, documents, images) to populate spreadsheet columns. Implementation details (LLM model, context window, fine-tuning approach) are undocumented, but the feature appears to use prompt-based query generation with fallback to manual query building if AI fails.
Unique: Glide's natural language query feature bridges the gap between spreadsheet users (who think in English) and database queries (which require SQL). Rather than teaching users SQL, it translates natural language to structured queries, lowering the barrier to data exploration. The data extraction capability extends this to unstructured sources, automating data entry from emails and documents.
vs alternatives: More accessible than Airtable's formula language or traditional SQL, and more integrated than bolt-on AI query tools because it's built directly into the data layer rather than as a separate search interface.
+7 more capabilities