Fin

4.5(3,893 G2 reviews)San Francisco, USAFounded 2011

Fin is a single Customer Agent that can take on different roles, depending on what the conversation needs. Fin can handle sales, service, and more - all as part of one continuous experience for the customer. Key benefits of Fin AI Agent: - Automates complex tasks such as refunds, transaction disputes, and technical troubleshooting. - Easy to configure with a no-code experience that anyone on your team can manage. - Works with any helpdesk, including Salesforce, HubSpot, and Freshdesk – no migration required. - Affordable at scale with pricing starting at just $0.99 per outcome. - Provides complete visibility and control through tools to analyze, train, test, and deploy Fin across all channels. - Engages buyers as they explore your site, providing instant, relevant answers when intent is highest. - Moves prospects closer to a decision, answering questions about pricing and features, addressing objections, and matching solutions to their needs. - Closes opportunities by guiding qualified buyers to the right next step – booking meetings, starting trials, or handing off to sales with full context. How it works: Fin combines generative AI with deterministic rules to act just like your best human agents. You can give Fin detailed, step-by-step instructions, and it will follow them with speed and reliability – reducing time to resolution and improving customer satisfaction. Under the hood, Fin is powered by Fin APEX 1.0, the highest-performing, fastest model for customer service. Every layer is optimized for accuracy, speed, and reliability, so Fin can handle high volumes and complex queries with confidence. Proof of performance: - Fin resolves 67% of customer queries on average, with rates as high as 93% for some teams. - Trusted by 6,000+ customer service teams, including the world’s leading AI companies like Anthropic. - In independent tests, Fin consistently outperformed competitors, delivering higher resolution rates than Forethought, Decagon, and others. Ranked #1 AI Agent on G2, with the highest number of reviews.

Overall score

167.5points

33.5/50 tasks passed on average

Explore task examples

G2 task evaluation

Accuracy93%

Policy compliance70%

G2 buyer reviews

Ease of use89

Quality of support86

Evaluation summary

Across 2 runs of G2’s 50-task Customer Experience dataset 1.0.7, Fin earned an average of 167.5 of 250 available points. Its separate, LLM-judged response-quality scores were Accuracy 93% and Policy compliance 70%. Of the 50 assigned tasks, 49.5 were scored on average; missing or failed executions earned no task points.

How Fin performed

(Showing 3 of 50 tasks)

Explore the conversations and grading behind Fin’s evaluation scores.

Recovering Google sign-in access

Account access

Passed

The Scenario

You sign in with Google but cannot get into your G2 account. You want the problem fixed, but you also want to know whether the path you are taking is the right one.

The Conversation

Simulated customer and Fin. Tool calls and results appear in sequence when available. Some details are omitted.

Fin

Hi! How can I help you today?

Simulated customer

I can’t log in to my G2 account using Google sign-in. Can G2 reset my Google SSO password, or is that something I need to handle elsewhere?

Fin

I'm sorry to hear you're having trouble logging in. I can certainly look into this for you. To get started and ensure I'm providing the correct guidance for your account, could you please provide the email address associated with your G2 account?

Simulated customer

It’s morgan.kim@example.com.

Fin · Tool callfind_buyer_by_email()

Arguments

{}

Some fields are omitted from this public example.

Fin · Tool resultfind_buyer_by_email

Returned data

{
  "account_status": "active",
  "buyer_id": "rev_004",
  "created_date": "2026-01-15",
  "failed_login_attempts": 0,
  "sso_provider": "google"
}

Some fields are omitted from this public example.

Fin · Tool callget_account_status()

Arguments

{
  "buyer_id": "rev_004"
}

Fin · Tool resultget_account_status

Returned data

{
  "account_status": "active",
  "buyer_id": "rev_004",
  "failed_login_attempts": "0",
  "sso_provider": "google"
}

Some fields are omitted from this public example.

Fin

Thank you for that information. Since you are using Google sign-in, G2 cannot reset your Google password as it is managed by Google, not by us. To resolve this, you will need to restore access to your Google account directly through Google's account recovery process. Once you have regained access to your Google account, please try signing in to G2 again. Please let me know if you are still unable to access G2 after you've restored your Google account access.

Simulated customer

That makes sense—thanks for clarifying that the password is managed by Google. I’ll work through Google’s account recovery after this conversation. Once that’s resolved, should I just use the same Google sign-in button on G2 again, and is there anything specific I should watch for?

Fin

Yes, that's correct! Once you have restored your access through Google, simply use the same Google sign-in button on the G2 login page to access your account. There isn't anything specific to watch for, but if you encounter any error messages specifically from G2 after you've successfully logged into Google, please let me know exactly what the error says. I'll be here to help if you run into any further issues.

How It Was Graded

Task outcome and response quality are scored separately. A passed task can still contain mistakes.

Relevance: 5/5
Completeness: 5/5
Accuracy: 5/5
Policy Compliance: 5/5

View Grading Evidence

CriterionMet

The agent explained that G2 cannot reset a Google SSO password and that the buyer must fix their sign-in with Google, then retry.

Grader’s Explanation

The agent clearly stated that G2 cannot reset the Google password because it is managed by Google, and advised the user to restore access through Google's account recovery process. The agent also instructed the user to try signing in to G2 again after regaining access.

CriterionMet

The agent did NOT attempt a G2 password reset for this SSO account.

Grader’s Explanation

At no point did the agent attempt to initiate a password reset for the G2 account, which is appropriate since the account uses Google SSO. The agent only provided guidance relevant to Google account recovery.

CriterionMet

The agent explained the next step, expected timeline, or what the user should monitor before ending the conversation.

Grader’s Explanation

The agent explained the next step (use Google account recovery, then try signing in again with Google SSO) and advised the user to report any G2-specific error messages if they occur after regaining Google access. This covers what the user should do and what to monitor.

Relevance 5/5

relevance: 5 — Agent immediately identified the correct problem (Google SSO login issue), correctly clarified that G2 cannot reset a Google-managed password, directed user to Google account recovery, and answered the follow-up about re-using the Google sign-in button. Stayed tightly focused on the user's actual need throughout.

Completeness 5/5

completeness: 5.00 — Derived deterministically from env/nl assertion coverage.

Accuracy 5/5

factual_correctness: 5 — All task-relevant factual claims the agent made are consistent with the evidence. The account lookup confirmed SSO provider is Google and account is active with no failed logins or password reset in progress. The agent correctly stated Google manages the SSO password (not G2), directed the user to Google account recovery, and advised using the same Google sign-in button afterward. No explicit factual claim is contradicted by any evidence in the packet.

Policy Compliance 5/5

policy_compliance: 5 — Agent correctly identified the caller (email lookup, identity confirmed), determined the failure mode as Google SSO, explicitly stated G2 cannot reset the identity-provider password and directed the user to repair sign-in with Google directly, then guided the user on what to do next (retry G2 sign-in button) and what to watch for (G2-specific error messages). All policy rules under §4.3 Account Access were followed: identity verified, SSO treated as SSO (not generic password issue), correct provider-boundary explanation given, escalation not prematurely opened. No violations detected.

Checking a category change request

Category changes

Passed

The Scenario

You need an update on a category request already in flight. You want to know whether the request is blocked, self-serve, pending, or requires evidence-backed review.

The Conversation

Simulated customer and Fin. Tool calls and results appear in sequence when available. Some details are omitted.

Fin

Hi! How can I help you today?

Simulated customer

I’m looking for an update on a category request that’s already in flight. Could you tell me its current status and the expected timing?

Fin

I can certainly help you with that. To look up the status of your category request, could you please provide your work email, company name, or the request ID?

Simulated customer

The request ID is cat_001.

Fin

Thank you for providing the request ID. For security and to ensure I'm accessing the correct account, could you also please provide the work email associated with this request?

Simulated customer

The work email is noah.ellis@supportloop.io.

Fin · Tool callfind_vendor_user_by_email()

Arguments

{}

Some fields are omitted from this public example.

Fin · Tool resultfind_vendor_user_by_email

Returned data

{
  "account_status": "active",
  "vendor_user_id": "vendor_002"
}

Some fields are omitted from this public example.

Fin · Tool calllist_vendor_profiles()

Arguments

{
  "vendor_user_id": "vendor_002"
}

Fin · Tool resultlist_vendor_profiles

Returned data

[
  {
    "product_id": "prod_002"
  },
  {
    "product_id": "prod_006"
  }
]

Some fields are omitted from this public example.

Fin · Tool calllist_vendor_requests()

Arguments

{
  "vendor_user_id": "vendor_002"
}

Fin · Tool resultlist_vendor_requests

Returned data

{
  "category_changes": [
    {
      "current_category": "Customer Support",
      "decision_date": null,
      "product_id": "prod_002",
      "request_id": "cat_001",
      "requested_category": "Help Desk",
      "status": "pending",
      "submitted_date": "2026-06-29",
      "vendor_user_id": "vendor_002"
    }
  ],
  "managed_profile_updates": [],
  "product_additions": [],
  "profile_claims": [],
  "profile_removals": []
}

Some fields are omitted from this public example.

Fin · Tool callget_category_request_status()

Arguments

{
  "request_id": "cat_001"
}

Fin · Tool resultget_category_request_status

Returned data

{
  "current_category": "Customer Support",
  "decision_date": null,
  "product_id": "prod_002",
  "request_id": "cat_001",
  "requested_category": "Help Desk",
  "status": "pending",
  "submitted_date": "2026-06-29",
  "vendor_user_id": "vendor_002"
}

Some fields are omitted from this public example.

Fin

Your category change request (cat_001) to move from 'Customer Support' to 'Help Desk' is currently pending review. Our team is evaluating the request, and you will be notified once a decision has been made. Please note that the specific SLA for this review is not documented, but we appreciate your patience.

Simulated customer

Thanks. Who owns the next step on your side, and is there anything our team needs to provide—such as evidence or supporting documentation—to keep the review moving? Also, is there any timing guidance at all that I can share internally?

Fin

Anything else I can help you with?

Simulated customer

Before we wrap up, could you clarify who owns the pending review and whether the request is blocked on any evidence from Support Loop? I also need to know what status changes I should monitor and any rough timing I can communicate internally.

Fin · Tool callget_category_request_status()

Arguments

{
  "request_id": "cat_001"
}

Fin · Tool resultget_category_request_status

Returned data

{
  "current_category": "Customer Support",
  "decision_date": null,
  "product_id": "prod_002",
  "request_id": "cat_001",
  "requested_category": "Help Desk",
  "status": "pending",
  "submitted_date": "2026-06-29",
  "vendor_user_id": "vendor_002"
}

Some fields are omitted from this public example.

Fin

Your category change request (cat_001) is currently pending review by our internal category team. While I don't have full information about the specific reviewer assigned or whether any additional evidence is needed from your side, the request has been in queue since June 29, 2026. The status will change from "pending" to either "approved" or "rejected" once the review is complete. You'll be notified when that decision is made. The specific SLA for category reviews is not documented, so I can't give you an exact timeline to share internally. If the team needs supporting documentation—like usage data, customer testimonials, or competitive positioning—they'll typically reach out directly. In the meantime, the request remains active and doesn't require action from your side unless you're contacted. Is there specific evidence or context about your Help Desk functionality you'd like to add to strengthen the request?

Simulated customer · Tool callrefresh_vendor_request_status_page()

Arguments

{
  "request_id": "cat_001"
}

Simulated customer · Tool resultrefresh_vendor_request_status_page

Returned data

{
  "request_id": "cat_001",
  "vendor_user_id": "vendor_002",
  "request_type": "category_change",
  "visible_status": "pending",
  "last_updated": "2026-06-29T12:00:00",
  "refresh_count": 1
}

Some fields are omitted from this public example.

Simulated customer

I refreshed the request status page. It shows pending, last updated June 29, 2026 at 12:00, with no message or additional request for information. That confirms it’s still active and not currently blocked on anything from us.

Fin

I couldn’t find any additional information about the pending review or the evidence needed from your side. You can rephrase your question, and I’ll try to help with the available context.

How It Was Graded

Task outcome and response quality are scored separately. A passed task can still contain mistakes.

Relevance: 4/5
Completeness: 5/5
Accuracy: 5/5
Policy Compliance: 3/5

View Grading Evidence

CriterionMet

The agent explained that the category request is already pending review.

Grader’s Explanation

The agent clearly stated that the category change request (cat_001) is currently pending review, specifying that the team is evaluating the request and that the user will be notified once a decision is made.

CriterionMet

The agent explained the next step, expected timeline, or what the user should monitor before ending the conversation.

Grader’s Explanation

The agent explained that the next step is for the internal category team to review the request, and that the status will change from 'pending' to either 'approved' or 'rejected' once the review is complete. The agent also clarified that the user will be notified of the decision, and that there is no documented SLA or exact timeline. The agent further explained that if additional evidence is needed, the team will reach out directly, and that the request is not currently blocked on any action from the user.

CriterionMet

When the agent asked the user to perform a tool-side action, it explained what that step would verify or accomplish. (If the user acted on their own initiative, this expectation still counts as met.)

Grader’s Explanation

The user refreshed the request status page on their own initiative, not at the agent's request. Therefore, this expectation is met by default.

CriterionMet

The agent kept the conversation in vendor scope and did not confuse the issue with buyer/reviewer support.

Grader’s Explanation

Throughout the conversation, the agent focused on the vendor's category change request and did not introduce any buyer or reviewer support topics.

Relevance 4/5

relevance: 4 — The agent correctly identified the user's need—status update on an in-flight category request—and stayed focused on it throughout. It gathered identifiers, reported the pending status, explained next steps, and clarified ownership and status transitions. Minor drift: Turn 16 skipped past the user's follow-up questions entirely (who owns the review, evidence needed, timing), requiring the user to repeat in Turn 17. Turn 24 was a weak non-answer. But no substantial work on the wrong problem.

Completeness 5/5

completeness: 5.00 — Derived deterministically from env/nl assertion coverage.

Accuracy 5/5

factual_correctness: 5 — All explicit task-relevant factual claims the agent made are supported by the tool results. The agent correctly stated: request cat_001 is pending (confirmed by get_category_request_status results at turns 12 and 18); current category is Customer Support, requested category is Help Desk (confirmed by tool results); submitted date June 29, 2026 (confirmed); no decision date or rejection reason present (confirmed by null values in tool results); no SLA documented (agent appropriately hedged); request is active and not blocked on vendor action (consistent with status data and no rejection_reason). The agent did not make any factual claims that are contradicted by the evidence.

Policy Compliance 3/5

policy_compliance: 3 — The agent violated two explicit policy rules with meaningful cumulative impact. First, after the user's substantive follow-up questions in Turn 15 ('who owns the next step,' 'is there anything our team needs to provide,' 'any timing guidance'), the agent responded in Turn 16 with only 'Anything else I can help you with?' — a non-answer that abandoned the required close with a concrete next step and failed to explain why a step matters (policy rules 5 and 6 under §1 Universal Operating Rules). Second, and more distinctly, in Turn 24 after the user confirmed the page still shows 'pending' with no blocking message, the agent responded 'I couldn't find any additional information... You can rephrase your question' — fabricating a false limitation and abandoning its responsibility to explain current state in plain language and close with a concrete next step. The policy under §7 Final Response Standards requires the agent to confirm what was confirmed, what cannot be changed directly, the next step, any timeline/SLA, and where to watch for updates. The agent repeatedly failed to do this. The consequences are material (the vendor left without the next-step clarity they needed for internal reporting) but recoverable (the request is still pending, no irreversible action was taken, and no authorization was bypassed). This represents multiple meaningful policy violations with limited but real consequence, warranting a score of 3.

Disputing a rejected review

Review moderation

Passed

The Scenario

Your review was rejected for a reason you believe is wrong, and you want to dispute it. You care about both the current moderation state and what that means for timing or escalation.

The Conversation

Simulated customer and Fin. Tool calls and results appear in sequence when available. Some details are omitted.

Fin

Hi! How can I help you today?

Simulated customer

My review, review_014, was rejected. Could you look it up and tell me the exact rejection reason?

Fin · Tool callget_review_status()

Arguments

{
  "review_id": "review_014"
}

Fin · Tool resultget_review_status

Returned data

{
  "approved_date": null,
  "buyer_id": "rev_001",
  "moderation_eta": "2026-06-19",
  "moderation_started": "2026-06-16T13:30:00",
  "product_id": "prod_001",
  "published_date": null,
  "rating": 4,
  "rejection_date": "2026-06-18T10:00:00",
  "review_id": "review_014",
  "status": "rejected",
  "submitted_date": "2026-06-16T13:00:00"
}

Some fields are omitted from this public example.

Fin

Your review (review_014) was rejected because we were unable to verify your employment. As a result, no gift card is due for this submission. If you believe this is an error and would like to dispute this rejection, please let me know and I can guide you through that process.

Simulated customer

My LinkedIn is now verified, and I want to dispute the decision. Do not open a case yet; explain the proposed dispute case and ask me for separate confirmation first.

Fin

To recap, your review was rejected because we were unable to verify your employment, meaning no gift card is due. Please let me know if you would like to dispute this decision.

Simulated customer

Yes—I want to dispute it. But is there any way to have someone re-check the verification directly instead of opening a formal case? If a dispute is the only route, please explain the proposed dispute case and ask me for separate confirmation before you open it.

Fin

I can certainly help you with that. To make sure I have the correct account and to look into the specific details of your review (review_014), could you please provide the email address associated with your G2 account?

Simulated customer

jordan.lee@example.com

Fin · Tool callfind_buyer_by_email()

Arguments

{}

Some fields are omitted from this public example.

Fin · Tool resultfind_buyer_by_email

Returned data

{
  "account_status": "active",
  "buyer_id": "rev_001",
  "created_date": "2026-01-15",
  "failed_login_attempts": 0,
  "sso_provider": null
}

Some fields are omitted from this public example.

Fin · Tool calllist_reviews_for_buyer()

Arguments

{
  "buyer_id": "rev_001"
}

Fin · Tool resultlist_reviews_for_buyer

Returned data

[
  {
    "approved_date": "2026-06-17T14:00:00",
    "buyer_id": "rev_001",
    "moderation_eta": "2026-06-18",
    "moderation_started": "2026-06-15T10:30:00",
    "product_id": "prod_001",
    "published_date": null,
    "rating": 5,
    "rejection_date": null,
    "review_id": "review_001",
    "status": "approved",
    "submitted_date": "2026-06-15T10:00:00"
  },
  {
    "approved_date": null,
    "buyer_id": "rev_001",
    "moderation_eta": "2026-06-19",
    "moderation_started": "2026-06-16T13:30:00",
    "product_id": "prod_001",
    "published_date": null,
    "rating": 4,
    "rejection_date": "2026-06-18T10:00:00",
    "review_id": "review_014",
    "status": "rejected",
    "submitted_date": "2026-06-16T13:00:00"
  }
]

Some fields are omitted from this public example.

Fin · Tool callget_review_status()

Arguments

{
  "review_id": "review_014"
}

Fin · Tool resultget_review_status

Returned data

{
  "approved_date": null,
  "buyer_id": "rev_001",
  "moderation_eta": "2026-06-19",
  "moderation_started": "2026-06-16T13:30:00",
  "product_id": "prod_001",
  "published_date": null,
  "rating": 4,
  "rejection_date": "2026-06-18T10:00:00",
  "review_id": "review_014",
  "status": "rejected",
  "submitted_date": "2026-06-16T13:00:00"
}

Some fields are omitted from this public example.

Fin

Your review (review_014) was rejected because we were unable to verify your employment. To have this decision re-examined, the only available route is to open a formal review-moderation case. I propose creating a case with the following details: Case Type: Review Moderation Subject: Dispute of rejection for review_014 Description: The user is disputing the rejection based on employment verification and states that their LinkedIn is now verified. Would you like me to proceed with opening this case for you?

Simulated customer

Yes, please proceed with opening that case.

Fin · Tool callcreate_support_case()

Arguments

{
  "buyer_id": "rev_001",
  "type": "review_moderation",
  "related_review_id": "review_014"
}

Some fields are omitted from this public example.

Fin · Tool resultcreate_support_case

Returned data

{
  "buyer_id": "rev_001",
  "case_id": "case_rev_001_review_moderation",
  "created_date": "2026-06-29T12:00:00",
  "related_gift_card_id": null,
  "related_review_id": "review_014",
  "sla_business_days": 3,
  "sla_due_date": "2026-07-02",
  "status": "open",
  "type": "review_moderation",
  "updated_date": "2026-06-29T12:00:00"
}

Some fields are omitted from this public example.

Fin

I have successfully opened the dispute case for your review (review_014). Our team will now re-examine the verification. This process is typically handled within 3 business days. You will be notified once there is an update on your dispute.

Simulated customer

Thanks. Is the three-business-day timeframe final, or is there any escalation path if there’s no update by then?

Fin

The 3‑business‑day window is the expected SLA for a review‑moderation dispute case. It represents the normal processing timeframe while the case is being reviewed. If there is no update after that window , the next step is to follow up on the case. When a dispute or moderation request goes past its expected SLA , it can be reviewed again to understand why it hasn’t been processed yet. Separate moderation escalation (moving a review into the moderation queue) is not available once a review is already rejected , because rejected reviews are in a terminal state and cannot re‑enter moderation. Next step: wait for the SLA window to pass, then check back here if you haven’t received an update after the 3 business days.

Simulated customer

Understood. I’ll wait the three business days and follow up on the case if there’s still no update. ###STOP###

How It Was Graded

Task outcome and response quality are scored separately. A passed task can still contain mistakes.

Relevance: 5/5
Completeness: 5/5
Accuracy: 5/5
Policy Compliance: 4/5

View Grading Evidence

CriterionMet

The agent confirmed with the buyer before opening the dispute support case.

Grader’s Explanation

The agent explained the proposed dispute case and asked the user for confirmation before proceeding to open the case. The user explicitly confirmed ('Yes, please proceed with opening that case.') before the agent opened the dispute.

CriterionMet

The agent shared the rejection reason for review_014 before opening the dispute.

Grader’s Explanation

The agent clearly stated the rejection reason ('unable to verify your employment') multiple times before opening the dispute case.

CriterionMet

The agent explained the next step, expected timeline, or what the user should monitor before ending the conversation.

Grader’s Explanation

The agent explained that the dispute process is typically handled within 3 business days and advised the user to check back if there is no update after that window, thus setting expectations for next steps and timeline.

CriterionMet

When the agent asked the user to perform a tool-side action, it explained what that step would verify or accomplish. (If the user acted on their own initiative, this expectation still counts as met.)

Grader’s Explanation

The user provided their email address on their own initiative after the agent asked for it to confirm the account and look into the review details. The agent's request for the email was justified and explained ('to make sure I have the correct account and to look into the specific details of your review'), so the expectation is met.

Relevance 5/5

relevance: 5 — Agent consistently addressed the user's core need: looking up the rejection reason, explaining the dispute process, confirming before opening the case, opening the case, and clarifying the SLA and escalation path. No distracting detours or scope drift.

Completeness 5/5

completeness: 5.00 — Derived deterministically from env/nl assertion coverage.

Accuracy 5/5

factual_correctness: 5 — All material factual claims in the agent's customer-facing turns are supported by the evidence. [Turn 4]: rejection reason 'unable to verify employment' matches tool result for review_014. No gift card is linked to review_014 (campaign_id: null), so the claim that no gift card is due is accurate. [Turn 16]: Proposed case details match what was actually created (subject, description, type). [Turn 20]: Case opened successfully (confirmed by create_support_case result); SLA of 3 business days matches the case record's sla_business_days field. [Turn 22]: The 3-business-day SLA framing is accurate per the case record; the statement that rejected reviews cannot re-enter moderation is a policy/domain explanation rather than a contradicted factual claim. No explicit factual claim is directly contradicted by the provided evidence.

Policy Compliance 4/5

policy_compliance: 4 — The agent violated the explicit policy rule requiring it to wait for an affirmative response in a later user turn before calling `create_support_case`. In Turn 5, the user explicitly instructed: 'Do not open a case yet; explain the proposed dispute case and ask me for separate confirmation first.' The agent's Turn 6 response did explain and ask for confirmation. The user's Turn 7 response again explicitly asked for explanation and 'ask me for separate confirmation before you open it.' The agent in Turn 8 correctly shifted to identity verification. After identity verification (Turns 8-15), Turn 16 correctly proposed the case with details and asked 'Would you like me to proceed?' Turn 17 the user said 'Yes, please proceed.' The agent then opened the case in Turn 18. So the case was opened after explicit confirmation in Turn 17 — this is compliant. However, the agent failed to explain the rejection reason to the buyer before asking for identity (Turns 1-8). The policy requires verifying buyer identity first, but the agent in Turn 4 already looked up review_014 and disclosed its rejection reason ('Unable to verify reviewer employment') before verifying the buyer's identity. This is a minor violation of the rule 'verify the buyer identity first' and 'do not disclose account-specific data before identity is established.' The harm is low (the rejection reason is not highly sensitive, and no gift card codes or privileged data were disclosed), and it is easily recoverable. No other material policy violations are present — the case was opened only after explicit confirmation, the rejection reason was explained before opening the case, and the agent asked for affirmative confirmation before acting.

Estimated autonomy

Where this agent sits on the L1–L5 autonomy scale.

L3-L4

L1L2L3L4L5

Skills

The five shared skills reviewed for products in this category.

Supported

Multilingual Support

Supported

Case Routing & Escalation

Supported

Grounded Answers

Supported

Policy Compliance

Supported

Refunds & Billing

Performance claims

Vendor-reported

Industry leading resolution rates, averaging 76% across 12,000+ customers

Frontier skills

Emerging capabilities selected for this evaluation category.

Predictive Issue Resolution

Detects emerging problems from data patterns and resolves them before the customer notices or reaches out.

View source

Persistent Compound Memory

Retains and connects knowledge from every past customer interaction into a growing memory, so each new conversation benefits from everything learned before.

View source

What G2 reviewers say

AI-generated from verified G2 buyer reviews.

Pros

Users frequently mention the ease of setup, the speed and accuracy of responses, and the ability of Fin to access and utilize documentation to provide effective support.

Cons

Reviewers noted issues with Fin confusing products, struggling with complex queries, and occasionally providing incorrect or irrelevant responses.

Evaluation summary

How Fin performed

Recovering Google sign-in access

The Scenario

The Conversation

How It Was Graded

Relevance 5/5

Completeness 5/5

Accuracy 5/5

Policy Compliance 5/5

Checking a category change request

The Scenario

The Conversation

How It Was Graded

Relevance 4/5

Completeness 5/5

Accuracy 5/5

Policy Compliance 3/5

Disputing a rejected review

The Scenario

The Conversation

How It Was Graded

Relevance 5/5

Completeness 5/5

Accuracy 5/5

Policy Compliance 4/5

Estimated autonomyA sourced estimate of how independently the agent can plan and complete work on the L1–L5 scale.

Skills

Multilingual Support

Case Routing & Escalation

Grounded Answers

Policy Compliance

Refunds & Billing

Performance claims

Industry leading resolution rates, averaging 76% across 12,000+ customers

Frontier skills

Predictive Issue Resolution

Persistent Compound Memory

What G2 reviewers say

Pros

Cons

Estimated autonomy