HeartBeatAgentsby Mosaic Singularity.
Verified October 13, 2026
This profile was compiled by Beag Labs, which makes a competing product (Papyrus). It is built from public documentation, not hands-on testing, and every statement links to its source.
At a glance
- Evidence coverage
- 7 / 8
attributes with a sourced answer, 1 only partially supported
- Cited claims
- 7
records in the Claim Ledger
- Documentation gaps
- 1
attributes not documented in sources checked
- Deployment
- Self-hosted
- Licensing
- Commercial
- Azure Marketplace
- Not documented
- Last verified
- October 13, 2026
Profile, attribute by attribute.
What it does
Autonomous agents on standing orders with tools, integrations, three-layer local memory, and reusable skills.
Source: BL-CLM-33 ↗Does not establish: Vendor marketing.
Deployment model
Self-hosted: desktop download (macOS DMG) on vendor site; AWS listing ships an AMI run in buyer's AWS account.
Source: BL-CLM-34 ↗Does not establish: Two different delivery forms; AWS AMI is not Azure.
Azure Marketplace offer
No Azure Marketplace listing found; only an AWS Marketplace AMI listing was found.
Does not establish: Absence of a found listing does not prove none exists; Microsoft Marketplace was searched only via web search.
Human approval
Only simple 'Ask User' and 'Present Choices' skills let an agent request approval or a choice; no broader approval policy is described.
Source: BL-CLM-35 ↗Does not establish: No broader approval workflow/policy gates described; security page describes none.
Licensing
AWS listing: EULA applies; community edition with one worker, more workers via separately purchased license.
Source: BL-CLM-36 ↗Does not establish: Source-code license (open or not) not stated.
Security controls
Documented: AES-256 at rest, TLS 1.2+, per-organization container folder scoping, token-authenticated websockets, token scrubbing.
Source: BL-CLM-37 ↗Does not establish: SSO, RBAC, certifications and audit log content/retention not documented there.
Intended buyer
AWS listing targets organizations wanting production-ready self-hosted agentic AI infrastructure.
Source: BL-CLM-38 ↗Does not establish: Vendor site does not name a buyer persona.
Public pricing
No prices listed; AWS listing says community edition with one worker, billing external via vendor license.
Source: BL-CLM-39 ↗Does not establish: Vendor pricing page rendered empty on fetch.
May fit well when
- Teams wanting agents run on their own machine or AWS accountBasis:Deployment model (BL-CLM-34)
May fit less well when
- Buyers who need to purchase through Azure Marketplace: we found no Azure listing in the sources checked (an AWS Marketplace listing exists).Basis:Azure Marketplace offer
Compared in
- Self-Hosted AI Agent Platforms Compared (2026)Six customer-controlled platforms compared on deployment model, Azure Marketplace offer, human approval, licensing, security and intended buyer. Every cell links to its source.
- Papyrus vs HeartBeatAgentsA sourced head-to-head, including where HeartBeatAgents may be the better fit.
Other platforms
Papyrus
Beag Labs
Customer-hosted agentic workspace for document automation, internal app creation and legacy system enablement.
- Self-hosted
- Customer cloud tenant
- Commercial
Corral AI (identified as 'Corral Sovereign AI')
Corral
Corral AI is described by its vendor as an AI foundation deployed from Azure Marketplace into the customer's own Azure tenant, where agents are built and governed.
- Customer cloud tenant
OpenClaw
OpenClaw Foundation (independent nonprofit, per repo README)
OpenClaw is an open-source assistant/gateway that runs on your own machine or server and connects chat apps to AI agents (repo README; docs.openclaw.ai).
- Self-hosted
- Open source
Methodology and disclosure
How these comparisons are built and checked.
We disclose our interest
Beag Labs makes Papyrus, one of the platforms compared here. Papyrus cells cite our own pages and are labelled first-party. Read every comparison with that in mind.
Every statement is cited
Each Verified or Not supported cell links to a record in the Claim Ledger with the source URL, where on the page it appears, the date we checked it, approved wording, and what it does not prove.
Documentation, not hands-on testing
These comparisons are built from vendor documentation, official listings and repositories. Beag Labs has not run hands-on tests of the compared products. We classify what is documented; we do not score or rank quality, and nothing here is a benchmark.
Missing documentation is not a missing feature
If we cannot find a capability in official sources we say Not documented and list what we checked. We only say Not supported or Partially supported when a source itself says so.
- Verified
- An official source we fetched states it. The cell links to the claim record.
- Partially supported
- An official source documents the capability but states a limit: one surface, a subset of actions, or an explicit exclusion. The cell says what the limit is.
- Not documented
- We checked official sources and found nothing either way. This is not evidence the capability is absent.
- Not supported
- An official source explicitly says the capability is absent or unsupported.