Open vs. Smith.ai

Smith.ai is a polished US-based answering service. They've been around since 2015, employ thousands of US-based receptionists, and have a strong customer base in the legal vertical. The marketing positions the service as "AI-powered" — and they do use AI behind the scenes for transcription, CRM updates, scheduling, and intake-form filling — but the customer-facing voice on the call is a human receptionist, not an AI.

That's a real product difference. Customers who want a human receptionist (a small law firm with high-touch client expectations, a luxury brand, a service where AI on the call would feel wrong) get genuine value from Smith. The receptionists are well-trained, the back-end AI keeps cost down vs. a fully-human service, and the integration with Clio / MyCase / HubSpot is good.

Open is a different product. Open uses AI on the call directly — speech-to-text, LLM, text-to-speech in a sub-200ms loop. The customer is talking to AI. The economics scale differently: Smith pays a US receptionist for every minute on the call; Open pays for compute. Smith's pricing is per-call ($1-5+ per call typically) plus per-message; Open's is per-resolution.

The breakeven point for cost is around 100-200 inbound calls per month. Below that, Smith and Open cost roughly the same; the differentiator is whether you want a human voice or AI. Above that, Open's economics improve faster than Smith's.

The 24/7 question is interesting: Smith covers business hours by default with extended-hours upgrades; Open is always 24/7 at the same per-resolution rate. For after-hours-heavy use cases (HVAC, plumbing, urgent care, legal intake), Open's coverage maths is more favourable.

When Smith is the right answer: small law firms or high-touch service businesses where a human voice is part of the brand promise. When Open is the right answer: businesses comfortable with AI on the call who want 24/7 coverage at lower cost.