Anthropic Computer Use vs OpenAI, UiPath, And The 47k Waste

OSWorld Is The Only Benchmark That Matters

There are a million benchmarks. There's only one that tests actual computer use on real software. That's OSWorld. It runs hundreds of tasks across real operating systems, browsers, and apps. The Stanford AI Index report calls it the standard for evaluating multimodal agents. Yet most vendors don't even publish OSWorld scores. You see 'leaps forward' and 'significant advances' but no data. That's a red flag.

Anthropic's Numbers Don't Hold Up

• Anthropic claims big improvements on OSWorld but doesn't publish the raw numbers.
• Their own documentation says 'Claude Opus 4.8 is the only model to beat 80% on Super-Agent' but that's a different benchmark.
• OSWorld results are publicly available on osworld-v1.xlang.ai and you'll see gaps.
• Meanwhile, Coasty publishes official OSWorld-Verified results with 85.6% accuracy.

OpenAI's Operator Is A Feature, Not A Platform

OpenAI's Computer-Using Agent launched with fanfare. It integrates into ChatGPT as an agent. That's cool. It's also a product feature wrapped in AI marketing. You're still paying for a ChatGPT subscription and hoping the model works. You don't own the agent. You can't deploy it to your own cloud VMs. You can't run multiple agents in parallel. It's a chatbot with keyboard access, not a true computer use platform.

UiPath RPA Is Stuck In 2020

UiPath talks about AI + RPA and open agentic ecosystems. That sounds modern until you look at the reality. RPA was built for structured data and predictable workflows. It breaks on dynamic UIs, web forms, and anything that looks slightly different every day. AI agents like Coasty actually understand what they see on screen. They reason about clicks, text, and context. UiPath uses AI on top of brittle automation. Coasty *is* the automation. That's the difference.

The 47k Waste Is Real

A recent arXiv paper documented a 47k horror story about AI agent failures. That's not an isolated case. Studies show experienced devs waste more time fixing AI output than they save by using it. The METR productivity study found mixed results. Some people get faster. Most don't. Why? Because they're using the wrong tool. An AI computer use agent that can't reliably click buttons is a liability. Coasty's 85.6% OSWorld score means it doesn't make those mistakes. That's where the real productivity comes from.

Why Coasty Exists (And Why It Wins)

Anthropic, OpenAI, and UiPath are big companies with big agendas. They care about their platforms, not about giving you the best computer use agent. Coasty is different. We built our own in-house model specifically for computer use. We publish official OSWorld-Verified results. We let you run agents on your own desktops, cloud VMs, or deploy agent swarms in parallel. You BYOK. You own the data. You get the accuracy that matters. That's why 85.6% on OSWorld isn't just a number. It's the difference between an agent that helps you and one that wastes your time.