sistava.com

Sistava starts at $50/mo, but that entry price is not the whole decision. The page states that included credits, employee capacity, and controls vary by tier, so the plan you pick depends on how many AI employees you need running at once and how much oversight you want built in. Before choosing, open the current pricing table on the Sistava pricing page rather than relying on the starting figure alone.

What the pricing page actually tells you

The available information is deliberately high-level:

What is not stated: exact credit amounts, the number of employees per tier, overage charges, or whether a free trial exists. Treat any assumption about those as unverified until you check the pricing table.

The cost question is really a capacity question

Because capacity and credits scale by tier, your real budget depends on how you intend to use the platform. Sistava is built around defined, repeatable workflows — sales, marketing, support, operations, research, and similar functions — with a human owner and an approval path for each.

That shapes pricing in two ways:

• Breadth of roles. Running one support workflow costs less capacity than staffing several departments at once.
• Depth of usage. A workflow that drafts content for review uses fewer credits than one that touches connected apps and processes tasks continuously.

If you only need a single bounded workflow, the entry tier may be enough. If you want AI employees across sales, marketing, and support simultaneously, expect to move up.

How to choose a plan without overbuying

1. List your workflows first. Write down each repeatable task you want delegated — for example, preparing support replies for human review, or building a prospect list.
2. Assign an owner and approval path to each. The platform expects a clear human owner per workflow, so this also tells you how much control you need from your tier.
3. Estimate concurrency. How many of these need to run at the same time? That maps to employee capacity.
4. Check the current pricing table. Match your list against the credits and capacity each tier includes.
5. Start narrow. The documented approach is to delegate a bounded task, review the result, then expand scope deliberately — which also keeps you on a lower tier until you have proof the workflow works.

What early users ran into

The founder testimonials on the page are worth reading as expectation-setting, not as pricing data:

• One user (Marcus T., founder) said the first prospect list "wasn't great" and improved only after he explained the target companies better — a reminder that output quality depends on the context you supply, and rework costs time even if it doesn't cost credits.
• Another (Daniel R., attorney) noted he still checks the work "probably more than I need to" — useful if you are weighing how much review capacity your tier should support.
• A studio owner (Sanne B.) described asking the AI employee to change a setting and having it done directly, which is the kind of connected-app action that may sit behind higher-tier controls.

None of these confirm specific pricing, but they show where value and friction actually appear.

Practical checks before you commit

• Confirm the current monthly price and what each tier includes on the pricing page.
• Ask whether unused credits roll over, and what happens when you exceed them.
• Verify which controls (approval paths, access restrictions) are available at your intended tier.
• Match employee capacity to the number of workflows you plan to run concurrently, not the number you might run someday.
• Note that legal-related workflows are described as research and document assistance, not legal advice — factor human review into any such use.

Sistava is an AI workforce platform for running defined, repeatable workflows in sales, marketing, customer support, operations, and research. You set up "AI employees" by giving each one a role, business context, tool access, and a review process — then delegate bounded tasks and expand scope as you build trust. It fits teams that have repeatable work with a clear owner and an approval path, not one-off tasks or decisions you want fully automated.

What Sistava actually is

It's a platform for staffing departments with AI employees rather than a single chatbot or a generic AI assistant. The core idea is that each AI employee is scoped to a workflow: you define the role, feed it the context and goals, connect the tools it's allowed to use, and decide how its output gets reviewed.

Plans start from $50/mo, with included credits, employee capacity, and controls varying by tier. The site points to a current pricing table, so check that page before choosing a plan rather than assuming a fixed rate.

What it does, by department

Sistava lists AI employees across these areas:

The pattern across all of them: the AI does the repeatable preparation and execution, and a human stays accountable for review and approval.

How setup works

1. Pick a role or define a workflow. Choose an available role, or define a custom one focused on a specific repeatable process.
2. Give it context. Provide the business context, goals, and the tools appropriate to that workflow.
3. Connect apps carefully. Only connect supported apps after reviewing what access and actions you're permitting.
4. Delegate a bounded task. Start with a limited task, review the result, then expand scope deliberately.

The site's own guidance is that each workflow should have a clear owner and an appropriate approval path — that's the condition that makes the model work.

What users report

The testimonials on the site describe a few recurring experiences worth knowing before you start:

• Expect to review more than you need to at first. An attorney and practice owner said he still checks the work "probably more than I need to," but is starting to trust it with more.
• Better inputs produce better output. A founder said the first prospect list wasn't great and improved after explaining the sort of companies they work with — the follow-ups then started getting replies.
• Output may need brand editing. A studio owner liked the TikTok videos but changes some captions that felt "a bit much" for the brand, and valued the content calendar most.
• It can act, not just advise. One user asked where to change a setting and the AI employee did it for them instead of sending a help page.

Who it's for

Sistava suits you if you have repeatable workflows in one of the listed departments, a person who can own each workflow, and a review step you're willing to enforce. It's a poor fit if you want unattended automation with no human check, or if your work is too variable to define as a workflow. Before committing, look at the current pricing table to match employee capacity and controls to how many workflows you actually plan to run.

Sistava is an AI workforce platform for defined, repeatable workflows in sales, marketing, customer support, operations, and research. You set up an AI employee by choosing an available role or defining a custom one, giving it business context, goals, and tool access, then delegating a bounded task and reviewing the result before expanding scope. It fits teams that can name a clear owner and approval path for each workflow — it is not a set-and-forget replacement for human judgment.

What an AI employee is here

Sistava frames its product as hiring AI employees rather than running one-off prompts. Each employee is tied to a specific workflow, and the platform lists departments that can be staffed this way:

The common thread is repeatability. If a task has stable inputs, a recognizable output, and someone who can check the result, it is a candidate. If it requires open-ended judgment with no review step, it is not.

How setup works, step by step

The platform describes a four-stage path. Each stage has an input, an action, and an expected result you can verify.

1. Pick a role or define a focused workflow. Input: your task description. Action: choose an available role or write a custom one scoped to a single workflow. Expected result: one employee mapped to one job, not a general assistant.
2. Give it business context, goals, and tools. Input: how your business works, what success looks like, which tools the workflow touches. Expected result: the employee can act on your specifics rather than generic defaults.
3. Connect supported apps — after reviewing access and actions. Input: the permissions each app grants. Action: check what the employee is allowed to read and do before connecting. Expected result: access limited to what the workflow needs.
4. Delegate a bounded task, review, then expand. Input: a small, checkable task. Action: review the output. Expected result: evidence that justifies widening scope — or a reason to correct the context first.

The order matters. Connecting tools before you have reviewed permitted access and actions is the step most likely to cause problems later.

What the founder accounts suggest about real use

Sistava publishes short quotes from users. They are marketing material, but they point at practical friction worth planning for.

• A founder (Marcus T.) says the first prospect list "wasn't great" and improved after he explained the sort of companies they work with more precisely. Takeaway: output quality tracks how well you describe your context, and the first attempt may need correction.
• A studio owner (Sanne B.) expected a help-page link when asking where to change a setting, and the employee made the change instead. Takeaway: employees can act, not just answer — which is exactly why the access review step exists.
• An attorney and practice owner (Daniel R.) says he still checks the work, "probably more than I need to," and is starting to trust it with more. Takeaway: graduated trust is the intended pattern, and human review is part of the design, not a failure of it.
• A founder also notes TikTok videos where captions sometimes need editing for brand fit, while the content calendar solved a backlog of unpublished material. Takeaway: expect to edit creative output; the scheduling and organization value may land before the copy does.

Choosing between an available role and a custom one

Both paths exist, and the choice depends on how standard your workflow is.

• Choose an available role when your task matches a common pattern and you want to start quickly. Less setup, but the role's assumptions may not match your business.
• Define a custom workflow when your process has specific inputs, tools, or approval rules. More setup work, but the employee's scope matches what you actually need reviewed.

In both cases the platform's guidance is the same: each workflow should have a clear owner and an appropriate approval path. If you cannot name the person who reviews the output, the workflow is not ready to delegate.

Cost and plan considerations

Plans start from $50/mo. Included credits, employee capacity, and controls vary by tier, so the entry price is not the full picture — a higher tier may be necessary depending on how many employees you run and what controls you need. Sistava directs buyers to the current pricing table before choosing a plan, which is the right place to confirm what a given tier includes.

Where this fits and where it does not

Sistava is a reasonable fit if you have repeatable workflows in the departments listed above, someone accountable for reviewing output, and a willingness to start small and expand deliberately. It is a poor fit if you need unsupervised decisions, if no one owns the workflow, or if the task changes shape every time. The Legal department entry is explicit that it assists with research and document workflows and does not provide legal advice — treat similarly regulated or high-stakes work as requiring human sign-off regardless of which employee handles the preparation.

Sistava is an AI workforce platform for defined workflows, and it lists AI employees across ten departments: sales, marketing, support, operations, data, finance, product, design, people, and legal. The fit is not "any task in that department" — it is repeatable work with clear inputs, a named owner, and an approval path. Legal is explicitly limited to research and document workflows and does not provide legal advice. Plans start from $50/mo with tier-specific employee capacity, so the number of workflows you can staff depends on the tier you choose.

Departments Sistava covers

The platform describes each department as a set of workflows rather than a job title replacement:

Two patterns stand out. First, several departments are framed as preparation rather than completion — support work is prepared for human review, product and data work is research and organization. Second, the departments with the highest stakes (finance, people, legal) are described with qualifiers: "finance-adjacent," "human accountability," "not legal advice." That is a signal about where the platform expects a human to stay in the loop.

What makes a workflow a good fit

The common thread across all ten departments is repeatability. A workflow is a candidate when you can answer three questions:

• What goes in? The platform asks you to give the employee business context, goals, and the tools appropriate to that workflow. If you can't describe the inputs, the employee has nothing to work from.
• Who owns it? Sistava states each workflow should have a clear owner and an appropriate approval path. A workflow with no owner has no one to catch a bad output.
• What does "done" look like? The recommended sequence is to delegate a bounded task, review the result, then expand scope deliberately. Work that can't be bounded is hard to review.

A concrete example: a founder in the testimonials describes a first prospect list that "wasn't great" until they explained the sort of companies they work with more precisely. The workflow (build a prospect list, then follow up) was repeatable and reviewable — the input quality was the problem, and it was fixable by adding context. That is the shape of a workflow that works.

Where Sistava is a weaker fit

Based on how the platform describes itself, these are the cases to think twice about:

• One-off or undefined work. If you can't state the inputs and the repeatable steps, there is nothing to configure. The platform is built around defined workflows, not open-ended requests.
• Work requiring a licensed professional judgment. Legal is the clearest case: research and document workflows only, not legal advice. Finance is described as "finance-adjacent" rather than as accounting or advisory work.
• Work with no review capacity. Every department description assumes a human reviews or approves. If your team can't staff that review step, the workflow is not ready.
• High-volume, low-tolerance output you won't check. One testimonial notes captions sometimes need editing "for our brand." If nobody owns that edit, quality drifts.

How to start without over-committing

The platform's own sequence is the safest path:

1. Pick an available role or define a focused workflow. Start with one, not ten.
2. Give it business context, goals, and appropriate tools. This is where most early failures originate — see the prospect-list example above.
3. Connect supported apps only after reviewing permitted access and actions. Access is a deliberate step, not a default.
4. Delegate a bounded task, review the result, then expand scope deliberately.

Before choosing a tier, check the current pricing table, since included credits, employee capacity, and controls vary by tier. The $50/mo starting point tells you the entry price, not how many workflows that tier supports.

FAQ

Can Sistava handle legal work? It assists with legal research and document workflows. It does not provide legal advice.

Does it replace the department? The descriptions consistently frame AI employees as preparing or supporting work that a human reviews and approves, with a named owner and approval path.

Which department should I start with? Whichever has the most repeatable, clearly-input workflow and a person available to review output. Sales, marketing, and support are the most commonly described starting points in the platform's own material.

Sistava is an AI workforce platform where you hire AI employees for defined workflows in sales, marketing, support, operations, research, and other repeatable areas. Safe use follows one sequence: review the permitted access and actions before connecting any app, delegate a bounded task, review the result, then expand scope deliberately. Each workflow should also have a clear human owner and an appropriate approval path. If you skip the access review or open scope all at once, you lose the ability to tell which permissions or instructions caused a bad result.

The control model: bounded tasks, human review, deliberate expansion

Sistava's own "How it works" steps describe a four-stage loop:

1. Pick an available role or define a focused workflow. A narrow workflow is easier to review than a broad one.
2. Give it business context, goals, and tools appropriate to that workflow.
3. Connect supported apps only after reviewing the permitted access and actions.
4. Delegate a bounded task, review the result, then expand scope deliberately.

The platform also states that each workflow should have a clear owner and an appropriate approval path. Treat that as the backbone of your setup, not an optional extra.

Before you connect anything: review access and actions

This is the step most people rush. Sistava's guidance is explicit that app connections come after you review what access and actions are permitted — not before.

A practical review checklist for each app you plan to connect:

• What can the AI employee read? Confirm the data it can see matches the workflow's purpose.
• What can it write or trigger? Sending messages, editing records, and publishing content are different risk levels.
• Who approves the action? If an action is irreversible (a sent email, a published post, a changed record), it needs a human checkpoint.
• Is this app needed for this workflow at all? Fewer connections means fewer ways for a task to go wrong.

If you cannot answer these for a given app, leave it disconnected until you can.

Setting up a workflow you can actually review

1. Define the role or workflow narrowly

Choose an available role, or define a custom one scoped to a single repeatable job. Sistava organizes AI employees by department, which gives you a natural starting boundary:

2. Give it context, goals, and tools

Supply the business context the workflow needs: what the output should look like, who it is for, and what "good" means. One founder's experience in Sistava's testimonials illustrates why this matters — Marcus T. said his first prospect list "wasn't great" and he "had to explain the sort of companies we work with a bit better," after which results improved and follow-ups started getting replies. Context quality directly affects review effort later.

3. Delegate a bounded task and review the result

Start with one task with a clear finish line, then check the output against your own standard. Reviewers in Sistava's testimonials describe calibrating their own trust over time rather than assuming correctness:

• Daniel R., an attorney and practice owner: "I still check its work, probably more than I need to, but I'm starting to trust it with more."
• Sanne B., a studio owner: she expected a help-page link when she asked where to change a setting, and the employee made the change instead — a reminder that AI employees can take actions, so review should cover what was done, not just what was said.
• Marcus T. also noted he "actually picked up client work from it," which he hadn't expected that early — a reason to keep review tight even when early results look good.

4. Expand scope deliberately

Only widen access, task size, or autonomy after a workflow passes review at its current scope. Expand one dimension at a time (for example, more volume before more permissions) so you can attribute any change in quality to a specific adjustment.

Where human review should stay mandatory

Sistava's own department descriptions build in human checkpoints. Support workflows are framed as preparing work "for human review and approval," and People workflows are described as "with human accountability." Legal is explicitly scoped to research and document workflows and is not legal advice. Keep approval paths in place for anything customer-facing, people-related, financial, or legal-adjacent, and treat those as permanent rather than temporary training wheels.

Choosing a plan with review capacity in mind

Plans start from $50/mo, and included credits, employee capacity, and controls vary by tier. Because review is part of the workflow, check the current pricing table before choosing — specifically how much employee capacity and which controls each tier includes, since those affect how many workflows you can run and supervise at once. Sistava directs users to "See full pricing" for the current table rather than publishing every tier detail on the main page.

Common pitfalls

• Connecting apps before reviewing access. Sistava's steps put review first for a reason; reversing the order removes your chance to say no cheaply.
• Skipping the workflow owner. Without a named owner and approval path, no one is accountable for reviewing output.
• Expanding everything at once. Changing scope, permissions, and volume together makes it impossible to isolate what caused a problem.
• Assuming a good first result means you can stop reviewing. Testimonials describe growing trust gradually, not switching review off.
• Treating legal or finance-adjacent output as professional advice. Sistava scopes these to research and document assistance only.