Automation you can trust in production.
Power Automate is fine to start, until you need audit trails, version control, and rollback. Ballet runs production-grade workflows you can review, simulate, and undo.
Power Automate is fine to start, until you need audit trails, version control, and rollback. Ballet runs production-grade workflows you can review, simulate, and undo.
Ballet gives you the governance Power Automate doesn’t. You describe the workflow; it runs as version-controlled code you can review, simulate, and roll back, so automating real operations stops being a risk.
| | Power Automate | |
|---|---|---|
| Approach | Deterministic workflows + agents, written as code | Visual flows and connectors |
| New integration | Generated on demand against any API | Connector library or custom connector |
| Complex multi-system work | Scales, written as code | Limited, lower deployment maturity |
| Output when it matters | Deterministic, agentic where it helps | Deterministic, weak governance |
| Breakage | Evals on every step, auto-patched with a diff | Breaks when a flow or system changes |
| Review & version control | Generated code, version-controlled | Weak auditing, no real version control |
| Time to first workflow | 30 minutes | Hours, limited production control |
And the production-grade work it can’t, with audit, version control, and rollback built in.
No. Keep it for the basics; bring Ballet in for workflows that need real governance and reliability.
Yes. Run history, approval gates, simulation, and rollback are built in, not bolted on.
Generated, version-controlled code with evals on each step, instead of opaque flows.
A 30-minute working session on your real systems. No SOW.