Anthropic wants to own your agent's memory, evals, and orchestration — and that should make enterprises nervous
Our take
Anthropic's recent updates to its Claude Managed Agents platform, particularly the introduction of capabilities like Dreaming, Outcomes, and Multi-Agent Orchestration, signal a significant shift in the landscape of AI agent deployment. By consolidating memory, evaluation, and orchestration into a single runtime, Anthropic is not only streamlining processes but also challenging the fragmented systems many enterprises currently rely on. As discussed in our previous piece, Anthropic’s Claude Managed Agents gives enterprises a new one-stop shop but raises vendor 'lock-in' risk, this consolidation may bring about a host of challenges, particularly concerning vendor lock-in and compliance issues.
For enterprises, the implications of adopting a more integrated platform like Claude Managed Agents are profound. On one hand, the promise of a unified system that manages state, execution graphs, and routing can simplify operations and reduce overhead. The allure of a system that learns from its own mistakes—through Dreaming—promises to enhance the capabilities of agents, enabling them to handle complex tasks with less manual intervention. However, this innovation may also force organizations to reconsider their existing modular architectures, which often provide the flexibility to adapt to specific needs and compliance demands. The risk of becoming overly dependent on a single vendor's ecosystem could lead to a lack of agility that many businesses can ill afford in today's fast-paced technological landscape.
Moreover, the introduction of Outcomes as a built-in evaluation mechanism shifts the focus from external quality assessments to integrating evaluations within the orchestration layer. This could streamline the feedback loop for agents, allowing for quicker iterations and improvements. However, it raises questions about the robustness and reliability of self-contained evaluations, especially when compared to the multi-faceted assessments that human oversight provides. As noted in our article, Anthropic Introduces Managed Agents to Simplify AI Agent Deployment, enterprises need to carefully weigh the benefits of this integration against the potential drawbacks of diminished oversight.
As organizations grapple with these developments, the decision of whether to adopt Claude Managed Agents becomes a pivotal one. For those in the early stages of AI adoption, the streamlined approach may offer a more accessible entry point into agent deployment. Yet for enterprises already entrenched in AI transformations, the transition could be fraught with complications, necessitating a thorough evaluation of their current processes and the implications of shifting to a more centralized system. The pressure to innovate and adapt is palpable, especially as competitors may begin to align their strategies with Anthropic’s model, potentially leading to a broader industry trend towards integrated platforms.
Looking ahead, the question remains: how will enterprises navigate this evolving landscape of AI agent management? As more companies consider the ramifications of adopting a comprehensive platform like Claude Managed Agents, they will need to balance the desire for simplicity and efficiency with the critical need for flexibility and control. Ultimately, the future of AI deployment hinges on an organization’s ability to adapt its strategies in response to these innovations, ensuring that they remain competitive without sacrificing the unique needs of their operations.
Just a few weeks after announcing Claude Managed Agents, Anthropic has updated the platform with three new capabilities that collapse infrastructure layers like memory, evaluation, and multi-agent orchestration, into a single runtime.
This move could threaten the standalone tools that many enterprises cobble together.
The new capabilities — 'Dreaming,' 'Outcomes,' and 'Multi-Agent Orchestration' — aim to make agents inside Claude Managed Agents “more capable at handling complex tasks with minimal steering,” Anthropic said in a press release.
Dreaming deals with memory, where agents “reflect” on their many sessions and curate memories so they learns and surface unknown patterns. Outcomes allows teams to define and set specific rubrics to measure an agent's success, while Multi-Agent Orchestration breaks jobs down so a lead agent can delegate to other agents.
Claude Managed Agents ideally provides enterprises with a simpler path to deploy agents and embeds orchestration logic in the model layer. It’s an end-to-end platform to manage state, execution graphs, and routing. With the addition of Dreaming, Outcomes and Multi-agent Orchestration, Claude Managed Agents expands capabilities even further and directly competes with tools like LangGraph or CrewAI, as well as external evaluation frameworks, RAG memory architectures, and QA loops.
An integration threat
Enterprises must now ask: Should we ditch our flexible, modular system in favor of an agent platform that brings almost everything in-house?
Anthropic designed Claude Managed Agents to share context, state, and traceability in one place. This means the platform sees every decision agents make, rather than enterprises having to wire separate systems together. It sounds practical to have one platform that does everything. But not all enterprises want a full-service system.
Claude Managed Agents already faces criticism that it encourages vendor lock-in because it owns most of the architecture and tools that govern agents. In the current paradigm, an organization may run Managed Agents but keep multi-agent orchestration, memory, or evaluations in a separate space ensures flexibility.
The platform offers a fully-hosted runtime, which means memory and orchestration run on infrastructure the enterprise does not own. This can become a compliance nightmare for some organizations that have to prove data residency.
Another problem to consider is that enterprises already in the middle of large-scale AI transformations must cobble together workarounds to deal with the constraints of their tech stack. Not every workflow is easily replaceable by switching to Claude Managed Agents.
Dreaming and outcomes against current tools
Most enterprises have a fragmented approach to AI deployment.
For example, they may use LangGraph or Crew AI for agent routing and workflow management, Pinecone as a vector database for long-term memory, DeepEval for external evaluation, and a human-in-the-loop quality assurance to review some tasks. Anthropic hopes to do away with all of that.
With Dreaming, Anthropic approaches memory by allowing users to actively rewrite it between sessions, so the agent essentially learns from its mistakes. Anthropic says this capability is useful for long-running states and orchestration. Current systems often handle memory persistence by storing embeddings, retrieving relevant context, and adding more state over time.
Outcomes addresses the evaluation portion by detailing expectations for agents. Instead of external quality checks, which are often done by a team of humans, Anthropic is bringing evaluation into the orchestration layer rather than above it.
But it’s the Multi-Agent Orchestration capability that pits Claude Managed Agents against orchestration frameworks from Microsoft, LangChain, CrewAI, and others. Model providers like Anthropic and OpenAI have already begun pushing aggressively into this space, arguing that bringing this to the model layer gives teams better control.
Big decisions to make
Enterprises face a big decision, and this one could depend on where they are in agent maturity.
If an organization is still experimenting with agents and has not deployed many in production, they may find moving to Claude Managed Agents and configuring Dreaming and Outcomes to their needs much easier. This is the stage of development where, even if enterprises are using a third-party orchestrator like LangChain, they’re still customizing it.
But for those who are already further along in the process, the calculation becomes trickier. It’s now a matter of parallel evaluation and better understanding of their processes.
Businesses, though, will face the same decision even if they don’t intend to use Claude Managed Agents. Anthropic has signaled that other model and platform providers will likely shift their product roadmaps to a similar model that keeps everything locked in the same system — because models may become interchangeable, but the tooling and orchestration infrastructure will not.
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience
Related Articles
- Anthropic’s Claude Managed Agents gives enterprises a new one-stop shop but raises vendor 'lock-in' riskAnthropic announced a new platform last week, Claude Managed Agents, aiming to cut out the more complex parts of AI agent deployment for enterprises and competes with existing orchestration frameworks. Claude Managed Agents is also an architectural shift: enterprises, already burdened with orchestrating an increasing number of agents, can now choose to embed the orchestration logic in the AI model layer. While this comes with some potential advantages, such as speed (Anthropic proposes its customers can deploy agents in days instead of weeks or months), it also, of course, then also turns more control over the enterprise's AI agent deployments and operations to the model provider — in this case, Anthropic — potentially resulting in greater "lock in" for the enterprise customer, leaving them more subject to Anthropic's terms, conditions, and any subsequent platform changes. But maybe that is worth it for your enterprise, as Anthropic further claims that its platform “handles the complexity” by letting users define agent tasks, tools and guardrails with a built-in orchestration harness, all without the need for sandboxing code execution, checkpointing, credential management, scoped permissions and end-to-end tracing. The framework manages state, execution graphs and routing and brings managed agents to a vendor-controlled runtime loop. Even before the release of Claude Managed Agents, new directional VentureBeat research showed that Anthropic was gaining traction at the orchestration level as enterprises adopted its native tooling. Claude Managed Agents represents a new attempt by the firm to widen its footprint as the orchestration method of choice for organizations. Anthropic is surging in orchestration interest Orchestration has emerged as an important segment for enterprises to address as they scale AI systems and deploy agentic workflows. VentureBeat directional research of several dozen firms for the first quarter of 2026 found that enterprises mostly chose existing frameworks, such as Microsoft’s Copilot Studio/Azure AI Studio, with 38.6% of respondents in February reporting using Microsoft’s platform. VentureBeat surveyed 56 organizations with more than 100 employees in January and 70 in February. OpenAI closely followed at 25.7%. Both showed strong growth between the first two months of the year. Anthropic, driven by increased interest in its offerings, such as Claude Code, over the past year, is putting up a fight. Adoption of the Anthropic tool-use and workflows API increased from 0% to 5.7% between January and February. This tracks closely with the growing adoption of Anthropic’s foundation models, showing that enterprises using Claude turn to the company’s native orchestration tooling instead of adding a third-party framework. While VentureBeat surveyed before the launch of Claude Managed Agents, we can extrapolate that the new tool will build on that growth, especially if it promises a more straightforward way to deploy agents. Collapsing the external orchestration layer Enterprises may find that a streamlined, internal harness for agents compelling, but it does mean giving up certain controls. Session data is stored in a database managed by Anthropic, increasing the risk that enterprises become locked into a system run by a single company. This may be less desirable for some firms and compete with their desires to move away from the locked-in software-as-a-service (SaaS) applications in the current stacks, which many hope that AI will facilitate. The specter of vendor lock-in means agent execution becomes more model-driven rather than direct by the organization, happens in an environment enterprises don’t fully control, and behavior becomes harder to guarantee. It also opens the possibility of giving agents conflicting instructions, especially if the only way for users to exert any control over agents is to prompt them with more context. Agents could have two control planes: one defined by the enterprises’ orchestration system through instructions and the other as an embedded skill from the Claude runtime. This could pose an issue for highly sensitive and regulated workflows, such as financial analysis or customer-facing tasks. Pricing, control and competitive set Balancing control with ease is one thing; enterprises also consider the cost structure of Claude Managed Agents. Claude Managed Agents introduces a hybrid pricing model that blends token-based billing with a usage-based runtime fee. This makes Managed Agets more dynamic, though less predictable, when determining cost structures. Enterprises will be charged a standard rate of $0.08 per hour when agents are actively running. For example, at $0.70 per hour, a one-hour session could cost up to $37 to process 10,000 support tickets, depending on how long each agent runs and how many steps it takes to complete a task. Microsoft, currently the leader according to VentureBeat's directional survey, offers several orchestration offerings. Copilot Studio uses a capacity-based billing structure, so enterprises pay for blocks of interactions between users and agents rather than the number of steps an agent takes. Microsoft's approach tends to be more predictable than Anthropic's pricing plan: Copilot Studio starts at $200 per month for 25,000 messages. Compared to similar competitors like OpenAI's Agents SDK, the picture becomes murky. Agents SDK is technically free to use as an open-source project. However, OpenAI bills for the underlying API usage. Agents built and orchestration with Agents SDK using GPT-5.4, for example, will cost $2.50 per 1 million input tokens and $15 per 1 million output tokens. The enterprise decision Claude Managed Agents does give enterprises who find the actual deployment of production agents too complicated a reprieve. It reduces their engineering overhead while adding speed and simplicity in a fast-changing enterprise environment. But that comes with a choice: lose control, observability and portability and risk further vendor lock-in. Anthropic just made a case for why its ecosystem is becoming not just the foundation model of choice for enterprises, but also the orchestration infrastructure. It becomes more imperative for enterprises to balance ease with lesser control.
- Anthropic Introduces Managed Agents to Simplify AI Agent DeploymentAnthropic introduces Managed Agents on Claude, a managed execution layer for agent-based workflows. It separates agent logic from runtime concerns like orchestration, sandboxing, state management, and credentials. The system supports long-running multi-step workflows with external tools, error recovery, and session continuity via a meta-harness architecture. By Leela Kumili
- Google and AWS split the AI agent stack between control and executionThe era of enterprises stitching together prompt chains and shadow agents is nearing its end as more options for orchestrating complex multi-agent systems emerge. As organizations move AI agents into production, the question remains: "how will we manage them?" Google and Amazon Web Services offer fundamentally different answers, illustrating a split in the AI stack. Google’s approach is to run agentic management on the system layer, while AWS’s harness method sets up in the execution layer. The debate on how to manage and control gained new energy this past month as competing companies released or updated their agent builder platforms—Anthropic with the new Claude Managed Agents and OpenAI with enhancements to the Agents SDK—giving developer teams options for managing agents. AWS with new capabilities added to Bedrock AgentCore is optimizing for velocity—relying on harnesses to bring agents to product faster—while still offering identity and tool management. Meanwhile, Google’s Gemini Enterprise adopts a governance-focused approach using a Kubernetes-style control plane. Each method offers a glimpse into how agents move from short-burst task helpers to longer-running entities within a workflow. Upgrades and umbrellas To understand where each company stands, here’s what’s actually new. Google released a new version of Gemini Enterprise, bringing its enterprise AI agent offerings—Gemini Enterprise Platform and Gemini Enterprise Application—under one umbrella. The company has rebranded Vertex AI as Gemini Enterprise Platform, though it insists that, aside from the name change and new features, it’s still fundamentally the same interface. “We want to provide a platform and a front door for companies to have access to all the AI systems and tools that Google provides,” Maryam Gholami, senior director, product management for Gemini Enterprise, told VentureBeat in an interview. “The way you can think about it is that the Gemini Enterprise Application is built on top of the Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform, and the security and governance tools are all provided for free as part of Gemini Enterprise Application subscription.” On the other hand, AWS added a new managed agent harness to Bedrock Agentcore. The company said in a press release shared with VentureBeat that the harness “replaces upfront build with a config-based starting point powered by Strands Agents, AWS’s open source agent framework.” Users define what the agent does, the model it uses and the tools it calls, and AgentCore does the work to stitch all of that together to run the agent. Agents are now becoming systems The shift toward stateful, long-running autonomous agents has forced a rethink of how AI systems behave. As agents move from short-lived tasks to long-running workflows, a new class of failure is emerging: state drift. As agents continue operating, they accumulate state—memory, too, responses and evolving context. Over time, that state becomes outdated. Data sources change, or tools can return conflicting responses. But the agent becomes more vulnerable to inconsistencies and becomes less truthful. Agent reliability becomes a systems problem, and managing that drift may need more than faster execution; it may require visibility and control. It’s this failure point that platforms like Gemini Enterprise and AgentCore try to prevent. Though this shift is already happening, Gholami admitted that customers will dictate how they want to run and control any long-running agent. “We are going to learn a lot from customers where they would be using long-running agents, where they just assign a task to these autonomous agents to just go ahead and do,” Gholami said. “Of course, there are tricks and balances to get right and the agent may come back and ask for more input.” The new AI stack What’s becoming increasingly clear is that the AI stack is separating into distinct layers, solving different problems. AWS and, to a certain extent, Anthropic and OpenAI, optimize for faster deployment. Claude Managed Agents abstracts much of the backend work for standing up an agent, while the Agents SDK now includes support for sandboxes and a ready-made harness. These approaches aim to lower the barrier to getting agents up and running. Google offers a centralized control panel to manage identity, enforce policies and monitor long-running behaviors. Enterprises likely need both. As some practitioners see it, their businesses have to have a serious conversation on how much risk they are willing to take. “The main takeaway for enterprise technology leaders considering these technologies at the moment may be formulated this way: while the agent harness vs. runtime question is often perceived as build vs. buy, this is primarily a matter of risk management. If you can afford to run your agents through a third-party runtime because they do not affect your revenue streams, that is okay. On the contrary, in the context of more critical processes, the latter option will be the only one to consider from a business perspective,” Rafael Sarim Oezdemir, head of growth at EZContacts, told VentureBeat in an email. Iterating quickly lets teams experiment and discover what agents can do, while centralized control adds a layer of trust. What enterprises need is to ensure they are not locked into systems designed purely for a single way of executing agents.
- Claude, OpenClaw and the new reality: AI agents are here — and so is the chaosThe age of agentic AI is upon us — whether we like it or not. What started with an innocent question-answer banter with ChatGPT back in 2022 has become an existential debate on job security and the rise of the machines. More recently, fears of reaching artificial general intelligence (AGI) have become more real with the advent of powerful autonomous agents like Claude Cowork and OpenClaw. Having played with these tools for some time, here is a comparison. First, we have OpenClaw (formerly known as Moltbot and Clawdbot). Surpassing 150,000 GitHub stars in days, OpenClaw is already being deployed on local machines with deep system access. This is like a robot “maid” (Irona for Richie Rich fans, for instance) that you give the keys to your house. It’s supposed to clean it, and you give it the necessary autonomy to take actions and manage your belongings (files and data) as it pleases. The whole purpose is to perform the task at hand — inbox triaging, auto-replies, content curation, travel planning, and more. Next we have Google’s Antigravity, a coding agent with an IDE that accelerates the path from prompt to production. You can interactively create complete application projects and modify specific details over individual prompts. This is like having a junior developer that can not only code, but build, test, integrate, and fix issues. In the realworld, this is like hiring an electrician: They are really good at a specific job and you only need to give them access to a specific item (your electric junction box). Finally, we have the mighty Claude. The release of Anthropic's Cowork, which featured AI agents for automating legal tasks like contract review and NDA triage, caused a sharp sell-off in legal-tech and software-as-a-service (SaaS) stocks (referred to as the SaaSpocalypse). Claude has anyway been the go-to chatbot; now with Cowork, it has domain knowledge for specific industries like legal and finance. This is like hiring an accountant. They know the domain inside-out and can complete taxes and manage invoices. Users provide specific access to highly-sensitive financial details. Making these tools work for you The key to making these tools more impactful is giving them more power, but that increases the risk of misuse. Users must trust providers like Anthorpic and Google to ensure that agent prompts will not cause harm, leak data, or provide unfair (illegal) advantage to certain vendors. OpenClaw is open-source, which complicates things, as there is no central governing authority. While these technological advancements are amazing and meant for the greater good, all it takes is one or two adverse events to cause panic. Imagine the agentic electrician frying all your house circuits by connecting the wrong wire. In an agent scenario, this could be injecting incorrect code, breaking down a bigger system or adding hidden flaws that may not be immediately evident. Cowork could miss major saving opportunities when doing a user's taxes; on the flip side, it could include illegal writeoffs. Claude can do unimaginable damage when it has more control and authority. But in the middle of this chaos, there is an opportunity to really take advantage. With the right guardrails in place, agents can focus on specific actions and avoid making random, unaccounted-for decisions. Principles of responsible AI — accountability, transparency, reproducibility, security, privacy — are extremely important. Logging agent steps and human confirmation are absolutely critical. Also, when agents deal with so many diverse systems, it's important they speak the same language. Ontology becomes very important so that events can be tracked, monitored, and accounted for. A shared domain-specific ontology can define a “code of conduct." These ethics can help control the chaos. When tied together with a shared trust and distributed identity framework, we can build systems that enable agents to do truly useful work. When done right, an agentic ecosystem can greatly offload the human “cognitive load” and enable our workforce to perform high-value tasks. Humans will benefit when agents handle the mundane. Dattaraj Rao is innovation and R&D architect at Persistent Systems.