See Pwas at work: 30 guided minutes on an application that already runs. Book the demo →
Compare products Pwas in your industry Book a demo
Pwas-One
ERPShopCRMDoc ManagerAI Agent
Pwas.FrameworkPwas.ClientPwas.OrchestratorPwas.Microservice
Pwas CLIAssessmefyDynamic Registry Builder
Solutions Industries Documentation Partners Request a demo Get Started
Italiano English
pwas.it — powered by pooel.it
products · comparison

Seven products, one shared declarative domain.

They don't compete: each one reads the same model and offers a different translation of it. And when you need something the model doesn't cover, Pwas.Microservice is the base for building it. Here's which solves what.

the seven products

Quick comparison.

how they combine

The three combinations that recur in real projects.

Backend and interfaces: the core of almost every project.

It's the combination most projects start from: you describe the domain, the backend runs it and the interfaces generate from the same declaration. It's enough for complete business applications — jobs, matters, shipments, procedures — and for customer- or citizen-facing portals.

Orchestration isn't needed until you want something to act on data autonomously. Many projects stay here for a long time, and that's fine: AI makes sense once the domain is well described, not before.

Backend and orchestration: when AI must act.

Added when a natural-language request needs to become an action rather than an answer. The step isn't an integration: the orchestrator reads the capability registry the backend already produces, so it knows what exists and what is permitted without anyone restating it.

The path that works best is gradual: first read-only on operational questions, which carries zero risk and exposes the limits of the domain description; then low-impact actions with human confirmation; then the rest.

Assessmefy and Registry Builder: shortening the slowest phase.

These aren't runtime components but tools that act earlier: gathering process knowledge in a structured way, and turning existing documentation into a blueprint to review.

They're needed in projects where understanding the domain is the long part — typically modernising historic systems and large organisations with unwritten processes. In a small, well-understood project they add little, and it's right to know that.

comparison table

What each one solves, in one line.

The components don't compete: they read the same model and offer different translations of it. The useful question isn't which is better, but which to start from.

ComponentSolvesWhen it's neededDepends on
Pwas.FrameworkExposing a domain as APIs with permissions and automationAlways: it's the base everything else rests onNothing
Pwas.ClientGenerating interfaces from the same domain declarationWhen you need operational screens, not just APIsFramework
Pwas.OrchestratorLetting an agent act in a verified, governed wayWhen AI must execute actions, not just answerFramework
Pwas CLICreating, starting and managing isolated projectsFrom day one of development onwardsNothing
Pwas.MicroserviceExtending the platform with bespoke tools and modulesWhen real code is needed outside pipelinesNothing
AssessmefyGathering process knowledge in a structured wayBefore describing a complex domainFramework
Registry BuilderProposing a configuration blueprint from documentationWhen documentation exists to start fromNothing
frequently asked

Choosing: the questions.

Which component should we start from?
The interpreted backend, almost always: that's where you grasp what describing a domain means rather than writing it, and everything else follows. Generated interfaces are the most visible consequence; orchestration makes sense once the domain is well described.
Can they be used separately?
Some yes — project management and the microservice base are independent — others rest on the backend because they read the model it produces. Either way there's no integration cost between components: they read the same source instead of being wired to each other.
Are licences separate per component?
The commercial model isn't based on per-component or per-active-user licences: it depends on functional scope and operating mode, and is defined together at proposal stage. That's a relevant difference when the scope grows over time.
What's the difference between the components and Pwas-One?
The components are the building blocks; Pwas-One is a product already built from them — ERP, shop, CRM and document management on a single domain. Those with standard needs start from Pwas-One; those with a very specific domain start from the components.

Not sure where to start?

Tell us what you need to build — we'll point you to the right product.