Agentic Index

Agentic supply chain platforms ranked for planning and execution (2026)

The Agentic Index grades 41 supply chain, procurement, manufacturing operations and logistics vendors against the same 14 capabilities as every other lane. These are independent ratings of agentic supply chain vendors, rated from each vendor's own public evidence rather than from analyst opinion, vendor briefings or paid placement. 7 of them document the full planning loop. That means a disruption starts the agent, the agent reaches your systems of record, it replans across the constraint set rather than answering one question, the decision leaves a record somebody can read months later, and a human governs the commitment before it becomes a purchase order, a carrier tender or a promise date. That is 17.1% of the pool. This is a bar, not a leaderboard: a vendor either documents all five in its own public materials or it does not clear, and Partial evidence on any one does not count.

The finding underneath the list is the reason the last capability is on the bar. This field can replan and cannot show you who approved it. Workflow orchestration is the near sweep of this pool at 38 of 41 and it blocks nobody. Human oversight and guardrails is the weakest of the five at 20, and 19 of the 38 vendors that can replan do not document a governing control in full. That gap matters more here than almost anywhere else on this index, because a replan does not stay inside the company. It leaves the building as money committed to somebody else.

Two more numbers to carry into a vendor call. 14 of the 38 vendors that can replan wait to be asked. Triggers and channel coverage reads 25 of 41 and is the single largest blocker on this bar, accounting for 5 of the 9 near misses on its own. A planning engine that only runs when a planner opens it is a faster planner, not an autonomous one, and that difference is invisible in a demo unless you ask to see a run start with nobody touching a keyboard. And memory is almost absent here. Only 5 of the 41 document memory and state persistence in full, and none of the 7 that clear this bar. Supply chain planning is the most explicitly stateful problem in this whole taxonomy. Every plan is a revision of the last one, and an agent carrying no state meets this week's shortage as though last week's had never happened.

One honest note on what this list is not. The bar tests one loop, and this lane runs that loop over very different objects. A demand forecast, a warehouse wave, a purchase order, a factory build sequence and a truckload are not the same problem, and two of the seven entries below resolve procurement spend rather than physical supply. Every entry says which, beside its name, because a buyer scanning a page about supply chain should not have to guess.

The planning loop, and how the 41 vendors score against it

Step	Capability, and what has to be documented	Full	Only blocker
1.The disruption starts it	Triggers and channel coverageA late shipment, a short supply signal, a demand swing or a supplier alert starts the agent with nobody opening the planning screen. Without this the vendor has built a faster planner, not an autonomous one.	25 (61%)	5
2.It reaches the systems of record	Integrations and tool callingThe agent reads and writes the ERP, the WMS, the TMS, the order book and the supplier network directly rather than reasoning over an extract somebody uploaded last night.	28 (68%)	0
3.It replans	Workflow orchestrationMulti step work across the constraint set with branching: evaluate an alternate, test a stock transfer, resequence a build, discard the option that breaks a promise date, carry the next one forward.	38 (93%)	0
4.The decision is auditable	Observability and auditabilityA durable record of what the agent read, which options it rejected and why the plan changed, readable months later by a planner, an auditor or a customer asking why the date moved.	21 (51%)	1
5.A human governs the commitment	Human oversight and guardrailsApproval gates, spend or volume limits or scoped permissions on anything that leaves the building. A replan is not a suggestion once it becomes a purchase order or a tender.	20 (49%)	3

Full means the vendor publishes evidence meeting the capability in its own public materials, under the Agentic Index verification standard. Only blocker counts vendors that document the other four capabilities in full and fail on this one alone. Read the Full column top to bottom and the shape of this category appears: orchestration 38, integrations 28, triggers 25, then the two governance capabilities drop to 21 and 20. The computation is the mature part of this market. The controls around what the computation commits you to are not.

The 7 vendors that document the full planning loop

Ordered by total coverage across all 14 capabilities, ties broken alphabetically, which is exactly what the rankings pages compute. Coverage measures breadth across the whole taxonomy, so a lower score here usually means a narrower product rather than a weaker one.

1. 1.ketteQ

   11.0 / 14 capabilities

   Runs: demand, supply, inventory and customer commitment planning, either on its own platform or on top of SAP, Oracle, Kinaxis, Blue Yonder or o9

   The highest coverage score in the lane and the only entry here built agent first for planning rather than adding agents to an existing planning suite. PolymatiQ is described by the company as an agentic solver rather than a traditional one: it runs thousands of multi pass experiments, tunes its own assumptions and evaluates trade offs without manual model maintenance, feeding a roster of named Intelligent Digital Agents across demand, supply, inventory, production and customer commitments. The commercially interesting part is the deployment choice. ketteQ will run as an overlay on SAP IBP, Oracle, Kinaxis, Blue Yonder, o9, Anaplan or Logility in four to eight weeks, or as the platform itself in three to six months. If you are weighing a rip and replace against keeping the planning engine you already paid for, this is the only entry on the list that documents both paths.

2. 2.Manhattan Associates

   10.0 / 14 capabilities

   Runs: warehouse, transport and order management execution on one unified platform

   The execution incumbent, and it grades like one. Manhattan Active unifies warehouse, transport and order management on one cloud native platform with autonomous agents and an Agent Foundry for building more, plus machine learning order orchestration across distribution centres, stores and drop ship partners with agent to agent support. It is the highest scoring vendor in the pool whose product is execution rather than planning, and the distinction matters: several planning vendors here can compute a better plan and cannot move a pallet. Manhattan documents the whole loop over the physical work.

3. 3.Suplari

   9.5 / 14 capabilities

   Runs: procurement spend, supplier risk and contract leakage rather than physical planning

   Read this one with its scope in mind. Suplari resolves procurement spend rather than physical supply: Worker agents continuously monitor spend, supplier and contract data, detect maverick spend, duplicate payments and contract leakage, and execute workflows with or without human approval, with full attribution from detection through execution to realised savings. Role based access control and audit logging are documented rather than implied, which is why it clears a bar that several larger planning vendors miss. Shortlist it if your supply chain problem is money leaving the building rather than goods failing to arrive.

4. 4.Zip

   9.5 / 14 capabilities

   Runs: procurement orchestration from intake through pay, rather than physical planning

   The other procurement entry, and the one operating at genuine enterprise scale: more than fifty Superagents running intake to pay, contract orchestration and procure to pay accounting across sixty plus system integrations, governed with audit trails, role based access control and a human in the loop. Anthropic, AMD, OpenAI, T-Mobile and Dollar Tree are named customers, and Gartner has it as a Visionary. Like Suplari it clears this bar on the strength of documented governance rather than planning depth, and unlike most of this list its adjacent comparison is a finance platform rather than a planning suite.

5. 5.Infor

   9.0 / 14 capabilities

   Runs: industry cloud ERP and SCM for mid market manufacturing and distribution, with the Infor Nexus supplier network underneath

   The only ERP vendor on the cleared list, which is worth pausing on given how many ERP vendors are in the pool. Infor pairs industry cloud ERP and SCM with the Infor Nexus multi enterprise supply chain network and embedded agent features, and its vertical depth in mid market manufacturing and distribution is the reason to look at it rather than the horizontal breadth. Koch ownership means the roadmap is not answering to a quarterly public market cycle, which cuts both ways depending on how much you value pace against stability.

6. 6.Pelico

   9.0 / 14 capabilities

   Runs: factory and multi plant manufacturing recovery: material coverage risk, disruption ripple and resequencing

   The most specific product on this list and the one whose loop most closely matches the bar. Pelico's Manufacturing Orchestrator unifies supplier, production, inventory, quality, maintenance and customer data across multi level bills of materials and multiple plants without requiring changes to the ERP, MES, PLM or TMS underneath. Domain agents anticipate material coverage risk, trace how a disruption ripples through builds, deliveries and revenue, simulate recovery options such as alternates, stock transfers or resequencing against on time delivery and backlog, then orchestrate the recovery across procurement, production, quality and customer service with humans retaining approval and a write back engine pushing validated updates into the systems of record. If your problem is a factory rather than a forecast, start here.

7. 7.Vooma

   8.0 / 14 capabilities

   Runs: freight back office execution for brokers and carriers, from quote through order entry to carrier calls

   The narrowest entry that clears, and included because the loop is the loop regardless of scale. Vooma's agents work across email, text and voice: Quote identifies and drafts responses to quote requests, Build completes order entry and load building, and Voice makes and receives calls for inbound bookings, appointment scheduling and carrier check calls, with everything syncing into the customer's TMS. Customers report automating up to eighty percent of manual order entry. The low coverage score reflects a deliberately narrow product rather than a weaker one, and freight brokers evaluating this lane should note it is the only freight native vendor in the pool that clears the whole bar.

The 9 vendors that miss by exactly one capability

These document four of the five and fail one. If you are already holding a shortlist this table is the most useful thing on the page, because it tells you the single question to ask each vendor rather than sending you back to the start. A miss is a documentation finding, not a verdict on the product: several of these vendors may well do the thing and have not published evidence that meets the standard.

The head to head questions, answered against the same bar

Most buyers arrive at this category holding two names rather than a field. These are the comparisons asked most often in this lane, each resolved against the planning loop above rather than against a feature list.

Common questions

Which agentic supply chain platforms lead the market in 2026?

Seven of the 41 supply chain, procurement and logistics vendors researched by the Agentic Index document the complete planning loop in full: a disruption starts the agent, it reaches the systems of record, it replans across the constraint set, the decision leaves an auditable record, and a human governs the commitment before it reaches a supplier or a customer. Ordered by total coverage across all 14 capabilities they are ketteQ, Manhattan Associates, Suplari, Zip, Infor, Pelico and Vooma. That is 17.1% of the pool. Nine more sit exactly one capability short, and five of those nine fail on triggers alone.

How do Blue Yonder and o9 Solutions compare on agentic capability?

Neither clears the planning loop bar. Blue Yonder documents triggers, integrations and workflow orchestration in full and misses both governance capabilities, observability and auditability and human oversight and guardrails, for a total coverage of 8.0 of 14. o9 Solutions is three short, missing integrations as well as both governance capabilities, at 6.5. Blue Yonder is one of only five vendors in the entire pool documenting memory and state persistence in full, which for a planning product is a meaningful differentiator against o9. Both are graded from their own public materials with no vendor briefing and no submission.

Is Manhattan Associates or Deposco stronger for warehouse and order execution?

Manhattan Associates clears the full planning loop at 10.0 of 14 coverage, the highest of any execution focused vendor in the pool. Deposco is three capabilities short at 6.0, missing triggers and channel coverage, observability and auditability, and human oversight and guardrails in full. That is a documentation finding rather than a verdict on the product: Deposco's Felix multi agent system acts across labour, inventory and fulfilment, and a miss here means the public evidence did not meet the standard, not that the capability is absent.

Why do so many supply chain platforms fail on human oversight?

Human oversight and guardrails is the weakest of the five capabilities in this pool at 20 of 41, and 19 of the 38 vendors that document workflow orchestration in full do not document a governing control in full. The field can compute a new plan and cannot consistently document who approved it. That gap matters more here than in most categories, because a replan does not stay inside the company: it becomes a purchase order, a carrier tender or a promise date to a customer. Ask any vendor on this list to show the approval record for a plan change that moved money.

Do these agents run on their own or does a planner have to start them?

Twenty five of the 41 document triggers and channel coverage in full, meaning a disruption, alert or demand signal starts the agent with nobody opening the planning screen. Fourteen of the 38 vendors that can replan do not, so they run when a planner asks. Triggers is also the single largest blocker on the bar, accounting for five of the nine near misses on its own, including Oracle, IBM Sterling, dSilo, Pluto7 and Traza. A planning engine that only runs when opened is a faster planner rather than an autonomous one, and the difference is invisible in a demo unless you ask to see a run with nobody touching a keyboard.

Which supply chain agents remember anything between plans?

Five of the 41, and none of the seven that clear the bar. Oracle, Resilinc, Blue Yonder, Phaidra and Traza document memory and state persistence in full. This is the sharpest version of a finding that has now appeared in three consecutive lanes on this index, and it is worst here, because supply chain planning is the most explicitly stateful problem in the whole taxonomy. Every plan is a revision of the last one, and an agent carrying no state meets this week's shortage as though last week's had never happened.

How is this different from an analyst magic quadrant for supply chain planning?

Every grade here comes from the vendor's own public materials, read and recorded against a fixed 14 capability taxonomy, with no vendor briefings, no submissions, no paid placement and no vendor review before publication. The bar is mechanical and stated in full, so you can disagree with it and recompute it yourself. The membership list is also printed rather than curated behind a methodology door, which matters more than usual on this page because supply chain is not a category in this index and the roster is named explicitly rather than derived from a filter.

Method, and one difference from every sibling page that has to be stated plainly rather than buried. Supply chain is not a category in this index. These vendors sit inside Enterprise operations agent, which spans finance, legal, HR and procurement as well, so a category filter would be useless here. The pool below is therefore a named roster rather than a derived one, which is a weaker construction than the sibling pages use and is disclosed for that reason. The membership rule is: the vendor's primary product is planning, sourcing, procurement, manufacturing operations, logistics execution or supply risk for physical goods, and it has a complete 14 capability grid on file. That gives 41 vendors out of 976 researched. If you think a name is missing or one of these does not belong, that is a reasonable disagreement to have with a published list rather than with a filter.

Researched in this lane and deliberately outside the roster: E2open, in the index but not currently a canonical record, so it carries no capability grid and cannot be graded against the bar; Anaplan, connected planning rather than an agentic product under the index membership rule, so it is not researched in this taxonomy. Every grade comes from the vendor's own public materials under the Agentic Index verification standard. No vendor pays for placement and no vendor has reviewed this page. Data last verified September 7, 2026. How this evidence is graded

Related: all enterprise operations agents ranked on total coverage, the full enterprise operations capability matrix, how every vendor scores on human oversight and guardrails, how every vendor scores on triggers, how every vendor scores on memory and state persistence, platforms that require human approval before an agent acts, autonomous AI workforce platforms, production ops agents for incident resolution, which of these publish pricing, compare vendors side by side.