amaiko vs Juma (formerly Team-GPT): Marketing AI or Company-Wide AI? (2026)

What Juma does genuinely well

First, the name. If you arrived here searching for a Team-GPT comparison, you are in the right place: Juma is Team-GPT, rebranded in late 2024. The new name came with a new strategy — a pivot from general-purpose collaborative AI workspace to a platform built specifically for marketing teams and agencies. And before we get to the differences, that pivot deserves credit, because Juma executed it well.

700+ pre-built marketing Flows are a real moat. LinkedIn carousels, competitor analyses, SEO articles, Google Ads reports — Juma ships hundreds of ready-made marketing workflows, and they are not glorified prompt templates. Flows auto-select the best model for each task across GPT-5, Claude and Gemini, so a content team gets state-of-the-art output without anyone learning model trivia. For an agency producing campaign assets at volume, this library alone justifies the evaluation.

Unlimited seats on credit pools. Every plan allows unlimited users; you pay for a shared credit pool instead of per head. That matches how agencies actually staff — freelancers, contractors, seasonal scaling — without the per-seat penalty that makes most AI tools painful for fluctuating teams.

Compliance credentials most marketing tools never bother with. SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, HIPAA, and a stated zero-data-retention policy. For a category where many competitors treat security as a footer link, that is a serious paper trail.

So if the question were “which AI should my marketing agency buy,” this page would be short. It is not short, because most people typing amaiko vs Juma into a search box are asking a different question: what AI should my company run on? And that is where the comparison stops being a feature race and becomes a category decision.

A category difference, not a feature race

Juma and amaiko do not compete on the same shelf. One is a vertical tool for one department; the other is a horizontal AI layer for the whole company. Five structural differences follow from that.

A marketing workspace vs a company-wide AI layer

Juma’s pivot made it sharper and narrower at the same time. Everything in the product — the Flows, the brand context, the integrations with Google Search Console and Analytics — is built for content production. That focus is a strength for marketers and a hard ceiling for everyone else: there is no Flow for IT ticket triage, no workflow for finance reporting, nothing for operations. amaiko is built as a general AI orchestration layer across all your company-internal systems — one assistant network serving every department, not one department’s toolbox.

A separate web app vs living inside Teams

Juma is its own destination: a web app your team opens in a browser tab, with its own login, its own habits, its own adoption curve. amaiko has no adoption curve, because it lives natively in Microsoft Teams — the place your company already spends its working day. Onboarding is a single Teams chat: install, say hello, done. For a company on Microsoft 365, the difference between “another tab to remember” and “already where you work” decides whether AI gets used or merely licensed.

Pull-based creation vs proactive intelligence

Every Juma Flow starts the same way: a person opens the app, picks a workflow, and runs it. That is fine for content production, which is inherently on-demand. It is the wrong model for company intelligence, where the most valuable insights are the ones nobody thought to ask for. amaiko works proactively: your morning briefing is ready before you open the laptop, your inbox is triaged before you read it, meeting follow-ups appear without anyone prompting. A creation tool saves you time when you use it; a proactive layer saves you the time you did not know you were losing.

Uploaded brand context vs learned corporate memory

Juma’s shared Projects hold persistent brand context — brand voice, briefs, guidelines your team uploads and maintains. That is useful, and honestly ahead of most content tools. But it is curation, not learning: the context is only ever as current as the last manual update, and it knows your brand, not your business. amaiko builds a persistent corporate memory that grows from actual company activity — decisions, context, who knows what — without anyone uploading anything. The measurable effect for amaiko teams: 35% less time spent searching and onboarding up to 57% faster, because new hires inherit a memory instead of an empty workspace.

The data question

Juma’s compliance posture is genuinely solid — SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, HIPAA, GDPR compliance stated, zero data retention stated. Credit where due. But it is cloud SaaS with no EU-only hosting advertised and no German-market orientation at all. For a US agency, that is irrelevant. For a German Mittelstand company whose works council asks where the data physically lives, “GDPR-compliant” is a claim and “hosted 100% in Germany” is an answer. amaiko gives the second one, certified against ISO 42001 — the management standard for AI systems.

Where the two genuinely meet

One overlap deserves mention, because it is the only place the products actually compete: model access. Juma’s Flows auto-select the best model across GPT-5, Claude and Gemini; amaiko routes every request to the best available state-of-the-art model. Both teams understood that locking customers to a single vendor’s model stack is a tax. The difference is what sits on top of the routing — marketing workflows on one side, a company-wide memory and agent network on the other.

The pricing reality

Juma’s pricing is honest and agency-friendly: a free tier with limited credits, a Business plan at $20 per user per month (legacy per-seat pricing the company is transitioning to a credit-pool model), a Growth plan listed at $35 per user per month, and custom Enterprise pricing with dedicated infrastructure. Unlimited seats on shared credit pools is a genuinely generous structure for teams whose headcount fluctuates.

amaiko starts at €19.92 per user per month, billed annually — published openly, no sales call required.

But read those numbers carefully, because comparing prices across categories is how bad purchasing decisions get made. $20 for a marketing content tool and €19.92 for a company-wide AI layer are not two quotes for the same job — they are budgets for different line items. Decide the category first; the price comparison only makes sense inside it.

Who should choose which

Honest segmentation, no sales reflex.

Choose Juma if you are a marketing agency or an in-house content team and your job is producing campaign assets at volume. The 700+ Flows, multi-model routing and unlimited seats are legitimately good — in that lane, Juma deserves the shortlist with no asterisk.

Choose amaiko if you want AI for your whole company on Microsoft 365: an assistant that lives in Teams, acts before you ask, permanently remembers what your organization learns, serves IT and operations and finance as well as marketing, and hosts 100% in Germany.

Run both if your marketing team loves Juma’s Flows and the rest of the company needs an AI layer. Different categories rarely exclude each other — a content tool for one department and a memory layer for the whole organization can coexist without a single overlapping budget line.

If you are surveying the wider field, our roundup of Juma alternatives covers the other contenders. And if you would rather see a corporate memory at work than read about it: book a demo — it takes one Teams chat to show you.