Orchestration
Exogram vs Microsoft AutoGen
“Conversational agents. Conversational risk.”
What Microsoft AutoGen Does
- •AutoGen enables multi-agent conversations where agents negotiate, delegate, and execute tasks.
- •Supports human-in-the-loop patterns — but they're optional and add significant latency.
- •Agents can agree on destructive actions during conversation without any validation.
- •Conversational coordination doesn't prevent bad decisions from executing.
What Exogram Does
- ▸Exogram enforces boundaries on every action that emerges from AutoGen's conversational loops.
- ▸Agents can discuss, negotiate, and agree — but the execution boundary validates the final action.
- ▸Human-in-the-loop adds latency (seconds to minutes). Exogram adds 0.07ms. One is optional. The other is always-on.
- ▸Works with AutoGen's tool use patterns. Same 2-line integration as any framework.
Key Differences
| Dimension | Microsoft AutoGen | Exogram |
|---|---|---|
| Governance Method | Human-in-the-loop (optional) | Deterministic enforcement (always-on) |
| Latency Impact | Seconds to minutes | 0.07ms |
| Coverage | When human is present | Every action, every time |
The Verdict
Use AutoGen for conversational multi-agent flows. Use Exogram because agents negotiating doesn't make their actions safe.
Is Microsoft AutoGen vulnerable to execution drift?
Run a static analysis on your LLM pipeline below.
STATIC ANALYSIS
Frequently Asked Questions
Why isn't human-in-the-loop enough?
Human-in-the-loop is optional, adds latency, and doesn't scale. Exogram is always-on, adds 0.07ms, and evaluates every action automatically. Governance should be infrastructure, not a UX pattern.