Agentic Index

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

Data last verified October 23, 2026

The Agentic Index grades 37 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 18.9% 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 two capabilities are on the bar. This field can replan and cannot show you what it did. Workflow orchestration is the near sweep of this pool at 34 of 37 and it blocks nobody.

Observability and auditability is the weakest of the five at 15, and 21 of the 34 vendors that can replan leave no readable record of the decision behind. Human oversight and guardrails is barely better at 19, with 16 of the same 34 documenting no governing control in full.

That pair 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. If nobody can reconstruct who decided and on what evidence, the first time anyone looks closely is usually after the invoice.

Two more numbers to carry into a vendor call. 6 of the 10 near misses fail on the record alone. Observability is now the single largest blocker on this bar: those vendors document four of the five and lose the whole loop on the audit surface by itself. It is also the cheapest gap on this page to close, because an audit trail that already exists in the product and not in the documentation is a writing job rather than a roadmap. Triggers and channel coverage was the largest blocker when this page was first published in early September; the lane review has since re-read the evidence vendor by vendor and it now reads 28 of 37, blocking 1. Still worth asking to see a run start with nobody touching a keyboard, since 7 of the 34 that can replan are still waiting to be asked. And memory is almost absent here. Only 3 of the 37 document memory and state persistence in full, and 2 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 several of the entries below resolve procurement spend, contracts or invoices 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 37 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.	28 (76%)	1
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 (76%)	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.	34 (92%)	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.	15 (41%)	6
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.	19 (51%)	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 34, integrations 28, triggers 28, then the two governance capabilities drop to 15 and 19. 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.dSilo

   12.0 / 14 capabilities

   Runs: contract, invoice and spend data turned into governed executable actions across procurement, finance and commercial operations, rather than physical planning

   The highest coverage score in the lane, and like the procurement entries below it, a vendor whose supply chain is made of paper rather than pallets. dSilo takes the silos a large organization accumulates, contracts, invoices and spend data, and turns them into governed executable actions across procurement, finance and commercial operations. It clears all five planning axes, which most vendors in this pool do not, and it does so on documented governance rather than planning depth. Read it as a document and spend platform that happens to close the loop, not as a replacement for a planning engine.

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 centers, 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.Ramp

   10.0 / 14 capabilities

   Runs: procurement from source to payment inside customer built approval workflows, with agent identities, budgets and payment rails underneath

   The broadest governance story on the cleared list, and the only entry whose product explicitly extends to the buyer's OWN agents. Ramp runs procurement from source to payment inside approval workflows the customer builds, with AP agents handling fraud checks and coding, and Ramp for Agents issuing identities, budgets, approval thresholds and payment rails to the customer's agents with a full audit trail, reachable by API, MCP and CLI. That last part is why it clears here: the oversight and observability halves are documented as product rather than implied. Like Suplari and Zip its scope is money rather than goods, so shortlist it against a finance platform, not against a planning suite.

4. 4.ketteQ

   9.5 / 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 agent first planning entry, and the only one on this list built 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.

5. 5.Traza

   9.5 / 14 capabilities

   Runs: industrial procurement execution on top of the buyer's existing ERP and procurement suite: intake, sourcing and RFx, supplier onboarding, contract renewals, invoice matching and spend classification

   Another procurement entry on a list that keeps producing them, and the one whose buyers are the most physical: large manufacturers, construction firms and other industrial companies whose procurement still runs through email threads and spreadsheets. Traza puts prebuilt AI workers on top of the systems already in place, SAP, Ariba, Oracle, Coupa, Ivalua, Jaggaer, NetSuite and Dynamics among them, with Kinaxis and Blue Yonder on the planning side, and has them run intake, sourcing and RFx, supplier onboarding, contract renewals, invoice matching and spend classification. What clears the bar is the shape of the deployment rather than the breadth of it: a customer maps each process once, attaches its policies and pins a human wherever judgment is required, so a worker can update a purchase order in SAP while a substitution above a spend threshold waits for approval, and every action lands in a signed audit log. It is also one of only three vendors in the whole pool documenting memory and state persistence in full, which in a field where every plan is a revision of the last one is worth more than its coverage score suggests.

6. 6.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.

7. 7.Suplari

   8.0 / 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 realized 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.

The 10 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 37 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 dSilo, Manhattan Associates, Ramp, ketteQ, Traza, Zip and Suplari. That is 18.9% of the pool. Ten more sit exactly one capability short, and six of those ten fail on observability 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 9.0 of 14. o9 Solutions is three short, missing integrations as well as both governance capabilities, at 6.5. Neither documents memory and state persistence in full, which only three vendors in the pool do. 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 labor, inventory and fulfillment, 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 documented in full by only 19 of the 37 vendors in this pool, and 16 of the 34 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?

Of the 37, 28 document triggers and channel coverage in full, meaning a disruption, alert or demand signal starts the agent with nobody opening the planning screen. Seven of the 34 vendors that can replan do not, so they run when a planner asks. Triggers now blocks only one near miss on its own, Oracle; observability and auditability is the largest single blocker, stopping six of the ten. 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?

Three of the 37. dSilo, HappyRobot and Traza document memory and state persistence in full, and two of them, dSilo and Traza, are among the seven that clear the bar. 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 37 vendors out of 1,078 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 October 23, 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, enterprise automation platforms, RPA and iPaaS ranked on the unattended run loop, which of these publish pricing, compare vendors side by side.