The Cheqq alternative to Zite
Building the app is the easy half.
Zite turns a prompt into a business app with a database, permissions and a login, and does it well. Cheqq builds the same thing — then runs the operation around it: the inbound email that starts the work, the agent that does it, the approval that gates it, and the report that comes out the end.
An AI builder for internal software, from the team behind Fillout. Describe an app and Zite produces it on its own database, with granular permissions, SSO, hosting and a SOC 2 Type II posture already in place — then deploys it to as many users as you like at no extra cost. For an IT function that has to say yes to it, that is a strong shape.
An AI that runs the operation the app belongs to. The collections, the app and the permissions are the starting point; on top of them sit agents that keep working, workflows that trigger from inbound email or a schedule, AI columns that fill every row, and documents generated from the same records.
Why people start looking
Nothing here is a knock on Zite. These are the points at which one product stops being the right shape for the job, whichever product it is.
The work starts before anyone opens the app
An enquiry arrives by email, a payment fails, a form comes in overnight. If the tool only does something when a human logs in and clicks, the first hour of every job is still manual.
Some columns need thinking, not typing
Researching a lead, drafting the reply, classifying the ticket, cutting the clip. Doing that in a chat window and pasting the answer back into a row is not automation.
Unattended is not the same as unsupervised
The steps that spend money or email a customer should wait for a named person to say yes — and chase someone else if they go quiet — rather than either running blind or not running at all.
The output is usually a document
The proposal, the board deck, the monthly report. If those live outside the tool, the numbers in them start drifting the moment they are exported.
Cheqq vs Zite
Row by row, in plain terms. Where Zite is the stronger answer, the row says so.
No SOC 2 and no SSO today. Data is encrypted, permissions are default-deny and auditable per app, and run history is retained per plan — but if a security questionnaire is the gate, Cheqq does not clear it yet.
SOC 2 Type II, SAML SSO, audit logs and a named enterprise tier, inherited from a business that has been selling to IT for years.
Around 40 managed integrations, weighted to the tools an operator picks themselves — Gmail, Notion, Slack, Stripe, Linear, Airtable, Supabase, Sentry. Past that the catalogue is not the ceiling: connect any MCP server or REST API yourself, unlimited MCP servers on Business and Team.
Around 30 built in, weighted to systems of record — Salesforce, ServiceNow, Workday, NetSuite, SAP, Snowflake and Databricks — plus custom API calls for anything not on the list.
32 templates, each arriving as a complete system — collections, workflows and agent skills wired together rather than a screen to fill in.
Around 130 templates across five categories.
Nothing. Viewers are free on every plan, and people using a published app never join your workspace at all — only owners, admins and editors take a seat.
Nothing. Unlimited app users on every plan, including free.
Workflows trigger from inbound email at an address you own, a schedule, a webhook, a record change, or a message in Slack, Telegram or Discord. The operation runs whether or not anyone is looking at it.
Workflows run inside the app, with email as an outbound action — Gmail, Outlook or SMTP.
Give a column a job and it does that job for each record — reading a source, drafting the copy, generating an image or a video — and fills the table in as it finishes.
AI builds the app and edits it. Running a model over every row of a table is not what it is for.
A step can wait for a named approver, escalate to someone else if they go quiet, and record who said yes.
Roles decide who can act in the app; the workflow does not pause for a person.
Proposals, sheets and reports generated from the same records, edited in place, versioned, and exported as real Office files.
Out of scope; what you publish is an app or a site.
A companion browser extension lets an automation work in a signed-in tab, for the systems that have no usable API.
Integrations and custom API calls only.
Every turn of the conversation is a restore point. Go back to any of them and the work goes back with it, with the abandoned version still there.
Version history on the app.
Based on each product's publicly documented capabilities. Both move fast — if something here is out of date, tell us and we will fix it.
What you would build instead
Not features to evaluate — sentences you could type on your first afternoon, and what comes back.
The enquiry arrives and the work is already done.
Give the workflow its own email address. When something lands, it reads it, creates the record, drafts the reply and waits for a yes — all before the first person opens the app.
One instruction, every row.
Point a column at the job instead of doing it a record at a time. It runs per row, catches up rows you add later, and lands the result as a real field you can filter and publish.
The expensive steps wait for a yes.
Refunds, outbound email, anything that spends money. The run pauses on a named approver, escalates if they go quiet, and keeps a record of who decided.
When to stay with Zite
We would rather you picked the right tool than picked ours. These are the cases where Zite is the better answer.
- Your security review is the gateZite has SOC 2 Type II, SAML SSO and audit logs. Cheqq has none of the three today. If procurement has to sign off before anyone can build, that decides it and no feature list changes the answer.
- You want the enterprise connector already builtBoth products can reach Salesforce or ServiceNow — Cheqq through an MCP server or the REST API you point it at, Zite through a connector its team already wrote and maintains. If you would rather not own that wiring, theirs is in place today.
- You already run FilloutZite bundles with it, and forms flowing straight into the same database with one bill is a real advantage that nothing on the Cheqq side matches.
- You want the largest template libraryAround 130 pre-built apps against Cheqq's 32. If your job is on their list and not on ours, starting from theirs is faster.
Moving across, gradually
You do not have to switch in one go — most people run both for a while and let the Zite side shrink.
Bring the tables across
Export from Zite's database and import as collections — typed fields and relations intact, so the app is a view onto them rather than a fresh island.
Rebuild the app by describing it
Live at its own address in minutes, on your own domain from Pro, with the fields it may touch written down explicitly.
Then add the half Zite did not do
The inbound email trigger, the AI column, the approval step, the monthly report. That is the part worth moving for.
Switching from Zite
Does Cheqq charge per app user, like a seat?
No. People who use an app you publish never join your workspace — they can submit a form, check a status board or read their own records without an account or a seat. Workspace viewers are free too. Seats are only for people who build: owners, admins and editors. On Team, ten of those are included in one flat price.
Is Cheqq SOC 2 compliant?
Not today. Data is encrypted in transit and at rest, app permissions are default-deny and readable in one screen, and run history is retained for up to a year on paid plans — but there is no SOC 2 Type II report and no SAML SSO. If your organisation requires either, Zite is the honest recommendation.
Zite is cheaper on the sticker. Is it?
On the entry plan, yes — theirs is a flat $15 a month against $20 per builder seat. Compare what the plans include rather than the headline: a Cheqq seat carries 7,500 AI credits a month, and a five-person team where only two people build pays for two seats, not five. If seat arithmetic is the objection, Team is one flat price with ten builders included.
Can Cheqq do the internal-tool part at all?
Yes — collections with typed fields and relations, published apps at their own address, granular permissions the server enforces on every request, magic-link login, custom domains from Pro and your own branding. The difference is not whether the app gets built; it is everything that happens around it afterwards.
Comparing something else?
vs SmartSuite
vs NocoDB
vs Teable
vs Excel
vs Google SheetsThe app, and then the operation around it
Describe the process you actually run, not just the screen you look at. Free to start, no card.
Start free