Comparison

How Dokko compares.

If you've tried ChatGPT and NotebookLM and hit their limits — or you're evaluating Dokko against the enterprise-search platforms — here's the honest comparison.

Start free trial Talk to sales

vs ChatGPT

A productivity tool — not a document platform.

ChatGPT (and Claude, Gemini, the rest of the general-purpose chat tools) are exceptional at reasoning over what they already know — and helpless on the documents that matter to your business. They don't know your contracts. They don't read your manuals. They have no idea what your regulatory framework says.

You can paste a document in and ask about it, but that's a one-document conversation that ends with the session. There is no governance, no audit trail your compliance team can defend, no way to embed the assistant on your customer-facing surface with the right guardrails.

ChatGPT is a productivity tool for individuals. Dokko is a document platform for organisations.

Dokko indexes your document library and reads it in full. ChatGPT doesn't, not at the organisation level.
Dokko cites the source documents on every answer. ChatGPT cites its training data, which you can't audit.
Dokko has Skills for in-conversation actions and Agents for multi-step workflows. ChatGPT has neither at configuration depth.
Dokko deploys customer-facing on your product surface. ChatGPT is a chat client.
Dokko is governed — audit logs, per-team config, data residency. ChatGPT was not designed for that posture.

vs NotebookLM

A personal research tool — not an organisational one.

NotebookLM is a beautiful product for individual research. Upload a stack of sources, ask questions about them, get answers grounded in what you uploaded.

It is also entirely personal. It doesn't serve a team, it doesn't take actions, it doesn't embed on your product, and it doesn't have a configuration model for different parts of an organisation. The legal team's NotebookLM and the support team's NotebookLM are not the same NotebookLM — they are two unrelated workspaces with no shared engine, no shared governance, no shared deployment surface.

If you've outgrown NotebookLM because you need a team product, a customer-facing product, or an actionable product, Dokko is the next step.

Dokko serves the team and the organisation. NotebookLM serves the individual.
Dokko has Skills and Agents. NotebookLM has neither — it answers, but doesn't act.
Dokko deploys customer-facing on your product surface. NotebookLM is a tab in your browser.
Dokko configures per team. NotebookLM has one mode per user.
Dokko is auditable for regulated work. NotebookLM was not designed for that.

vs Glean

Enterprise search across SaaS — not document understanding.

Glean (and the rest of the enterprise-search category) indexes your SaaS — your Slack, your Drive, your wiki, your tickets — and gives you search across all of it. That's a real category and a real value. It is not document understanding.

Glean treats documents as items to surface in search results. Dokko treats documents as the thing — reads them in full, cross-references within them, cites them at the document level. Glean has a thin agent layer on top of the search index. Dokko has a real Agent layer (multi-step workflows over MCP and OpenAPI) and Skills (in-conversation, configurable per team).

If you need search across all your SaaS, Glean is the right answer. If you need to understand and act on a specific document corpus — contracts, manuals, frameworks — Dokko is.

Dokko reads documents in depth. Glean searches across SaaS at breadth.
Dokko has real Skills + Agents. Glean has light agents on top of the search index.
Dokko is per-organisation. Glean is per-seat with seat minimums.
Dokko publishes its rates. Glean is sales-led.

At a glance

The whole comparison, one row at a time.

A capability-by-capability view of where each tool earns its place and where Dokko earns ours.

Capability	ChatGPT	NotebookLM	Glean	Dokko
Reads your document library in full	No	Per session	Indexes for search	Yes — full read, multimodal
Cross-document, in context	No	Per session	Search across	Yes — native
Document-level citations	No	Yes	Sometimes	Yes — every answer
Configurable per team	No	No	Limited	Yes — per team, per surface
In-conversation Skills	No	No	No	Yes — early access
Multi-step Agents (MCP / OpenAPI)	Light	No	Light	Yes — first-class · early access
Customer-facing embed	No	No	No	Yes — one script tag
Audit logs	Limited	No	Yes (enterprise)	Yes from Pro
Published pricing	Yes	Yes	No	Yes — every tier
Per-organisation, not per-seat	Per-seat	Per-seat	Per-seat	Yes
BYOK	No	No	No	Yes — same subscription
Data residency controls	Limited	Limited	Yes	EU by default; separate region installations available on Enterprise

Categorisations are our reading of each product's documented capabilities at time of writing. Specifics shift; this is the shape, not the snapshot.

Honest fit

When Dokko is — and isn't — the right tool.

Dokko earns its place on a specific shape of work. Where another tool fits better, we'll tell you which one.

Good fit

When Dokko earns its place.

Dense, cross-referenced documents. Contracts, compliance frameworks, technical manuals, clinical guidelines, regulatory filings. The content where "almost right" is dangerous.
Document libraries too large for hand-search. Hundreds to tens of thousands of documents — where searching them by hand is no longer the answer.
Teams that need governance. Audit logs, source citations, per-team configuration, data residency controls.
Internal + customer-facing AI on one corpus. The "two surfaces, one engine" shape Dokko was built for.
Buyers who want predictable bills. Published pricing, controllable caps with a monthly overage ceiling, an import preview before every charge.

Not a fit

When Dokko is the wrong choice.

Single-user document Q&A on a small set of sources. NotebookLM is better and cheaper.
General productivity chat. "Draft me an email, summarise this meeting." ChatGPT or Claude are better.
Enterprise search across SaaS. Slack, Drive, Notion, Jira, tickets — the full surface. Glean was built for that; we were not.
Pure-vertical workflows where a specialist tool dominates. Harvey for big-law contract drafting, for example. The specialist will outpoint standard Dokko on its native task. If a specialist doesn't fit your stack — or doesn't exist for your vertical — Mono can fine-tune models and build the vertical workflow into Dokko for you.
Highly-bespoke ML projects — not off-the-shelf. Standard Dokko isn't built to be your custom retrieval stack. If you need bespoke work, Mono — the company behind Dokko — can customise the platform or build from scratch for your team.

If your use case lands on the right column, save your time and ours by going to the right tool.

Get started

Compare on the work
that matters.

The honest comparison is the one done on your documents, not in a demo deck. Start the free trial, index a real knowledge base, ask the questions your team actually asks.