Fanatical Labs

Name: Fanatical Labs
Brand: Fanatical Labs

We're a small team of down-to-earth and hard-working folks who have a history of building high-quality software.

Est 2012|8 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 33|Website|FTEs 3|HQ Minneapolis, us

01Competitive Landscape

This section focuses primarily on Glances as the most generalizable product offering and compares it against popular automation and integration platforms.

Narrative analysis

Where Glances may address specific pain points: - Glances’ overlay model aims to reduce the need for users to switch between multiple applications by surfacing contextual data in the currently used application. - The vendor also claims a data-flow model intended to minimize persistent storage of third-party application data; this architecture claim should be validated during security review. Where competitors may be stronger: - For large-scale workflow automation with complex branching, retry logic, queues, and broad connector coverage, established automation platforms such as Zapier, Make, and Workato have larger ecosystems and more third-party content. - For explicit governance features (SAML/SSO, SCIM, admin controls, audit logs), larger automation vendors often document enterprise controls more clearly in public materials; equivalent documentation for Glances was not evident in public sources reviewed.

	Glances	Zapier	Make (formerly Integromat)
Starting Price	Vendor materials reference published per-seat starting pricing; confirm current pricing with the vendor	Free tier; paid plans start at levels published by Zapier (e.g., Professional tier)	Free tier; paid pricing structured by operation/credit usage as published by Make
Best For	Providing a cross-application context overlay and enabling quick context lookups while working in a primary app	Broad app-to-app automation with a large connector catalog	Scenario-based automations with detailed logic and often cost-effective at higher operation volumes
Key Strength	Overlay approach for surfacing contextual data in-app; vendor claims a lightweight data storage model (vendor-claimed)	Large integration catalog and mature workflow builder	Granular scenario design and operation-based pricing that can be economical for high-volume use
Key Weakness	Limited independent review coverage and limited public documentation of enterprise compliance features	Task-based pricing may increase costs at scale for some use cases	Learning curve for complex scenarios; community comments sometimes raise support responsiveness concerns

01Competitive Landscape

This section focuses primarily on Glances as the most generalizable product offering and compares it against popular automation and integration platforms.

Narrative analysis

Where Glances may address specific pain points:

Glances’ overlay model aims to reduce the need for users to switch between multiple applications by surfacing contextual data in the currently used application.
The vendor also claims a data-flow model intended to minimize persistent storage of third-party application data; this architecture claim should be validated during security review.

Where competitors may be stronger:

For large-scale workflow automation with complex branching, retry logic, queues, and broad connector coverage, established automation platforms such as Zapier, Make, and Workato have larger ecosystems and more third-party content.
For explicit governance features (SAML/SSO, SCIM, admin controls, audit logs), larger automation vendors often document enterprise controls more clearly in public materials; equivalent documentation for Glances was not evident in public sources reviewed.

	Glances	Zapier	Make (formerly Integromat)
Starting Price	Vendor materials reference published per-seat starting pricing; confirm current pricing with the vendor	Free tier; paid plans start at levels published by Zapier (e.g., Professional tier)	Free tier; paid pricing structured by operation/credit usage as published by Make
Best For	Providing a cross-application context overlay and enabling quick context lookups while working in a primary app	Broad app-to-app automation with a large connector catalog	Scenario-based automations with detailed logic and often cost-effective at higher operation volumes
Key Strength	Overlay approach for surfacing contextual data in-app; vendor claims a lightweight data storage model (vendor-claimed)	Large integration catalog and mature workflow builder	Granular scenario design and operation-based pricing that can be economical for high-volume use
Key Weakness	Limited independent review coverage and limited public documentation of enterprise compliance features	Task-based pricing may increase costs at scale for some use cases	Learning curve for complex scenarios; community comments sometimes raise support responsiveness concerns

Fanatical Labs

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

02Market Map

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

02Market Map