Comparison
Brewyard vs Claude Cowork
Everyone who finds Brewyard has already seen Claude's own products, so let's do this properly: what each one is built for, what you actually get, and where the line between them falls. It is not the line these pages usually draw. Cowork ships on Anthropic's Team plans as well as personal ones, so this was never a question of who signs the invoice — it is a question of whether the work in front of you needs one assistant or several.
Where the line falls
Which one fits the work in front of you?
Claude Cowork: one assistant, and you steer
You describe a task and work it through with a single assistant — model usage included, apps on web and mobile, nothing to configure. Anthropic ships it on Pro, Max and Team plans, so it is not only a personal tool. For work you can hold in one conversation it is excellent, and cheaper than anything you would assemble yourself.
Brewyard: a team, and you brief it
You write a paragraph. A team of agents plans it, hires the roles it needs, delegates between them and reviews its own output — in your browser, on your own Anthropic key, under a monthly ceiling the platform enforces. That is worth having whether the project is yours or a client's. What changes when it is a client's is the paperwork, and that is here too.
Nobody has only one kind of work. The useful question is not which product you are — it is what shape the thing in front of you is, and plenty of people will sensibly keep both.
What you actually get
What orchestration actually means here
Not a chatbot with different hats on. A team with roles, working in your browser, on one screen you can watch.
You brief one person
A paragraph about the project — no prompt engineering, no format to learn. The CEO agent takes it from there.
The work gets split
A project manager turns the brief into workstreams and gives each one an owner, so nothing lands as one enormous prompt.
Specialists do their part
A researcher gathers, a tech lead judges feasibility, a CFO costs it. Each stays in their lane, and says so when a question is not theirs.
They hand work to each other
Delegation and review happen between the agents, not through you. You are asked when a decision is genuinely yours and not before — so the work carries on while you are doing something else. This is the part a second seat does not buy you.
You watch it happen
Who is working, what they just did, what it has cost and what is ready to read — one console, updating as the team moves. Not a progress bar.
It comes back finished
Documents you can open and download, with every claim naming where it came from — and “not known” where nothing backed it.
Agents work in 14 languages and deliver in yours.
In practice
A Tuesday, in practice
You run a brand studio — five people, or one person and a lot of nerve. A client sends a brief, three competitor decks and a spreadsheet of customer feedback, and wants positioning by Friday.
What the team does
You paste the brief in a paragraph. The project manager splits it: someone reads the decks and pulls out the claims each competitor is making, someone works through the feedback for the words customers actually use, someone drafts positioning against both. You watch it on one screen, and you can see the spend as it goes. Wednesday morning there is a draft with its sources attached.
And the part nobody thinks about until Thursday
That feedback spreadsheet had named customers in it. When somebody asks where it went, you have an answer ready rather than an awkward pause: stored in Azure UK South (London), the sub-processor list is a page on this site rather than an email you have to request, and the model ran on your own Anthropic account. One invoice with your VAT number, one Anthropic bill at Anthropic's price.
Three people's worth of work in a day and a half. The difference is not only how fast it went — it is what you can say afterwards.
Side by side
At a glance
Eleven rows, grouped, with the winner named on each one — including the three that go to Cowork. A comparison table on a vendor's own site is worth nothing if it cannot say that.
| Aspect | Claude Cowork | Brewyard | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| What it is for | |||
| Made for | A task you can hold in one conversation | Work that needs several people's worth of effort at once — your own projects or a client's | |
| What you get | One assistant you work a task through with | A team of agents with roles that plan, delegate and review each other's work | Brewyard |
| Money | |||
| Model usage | Included in the subscription | Billed to you by Anthropic on your own key — no markup, because it never passes through us | |
| Spend ceiling | Managed through the plan's included usage | A monthly cap you set — warned at 75%, stopped at 95%, enforced by the platform | Brewyard |
| Price | From $20 a month, model usage included | A day pass for a one-off project, or a monthly plan — current prices are on the pricing page | Claude Cowork |
| Data and paperwork | |||
| Data processing agreement | Signable on Anthropic's Team and Enterprise plans; not on a personal Pro or Max subscription | Published in full on this site so your lawyer can read it before you talk to us — still a draft pending counsel review, and the page says so | |
| Where your data is stored | EU or UK residency is not among the features Anthropic lists for these plans | Azure UK South (London), for everything we store | Brewyard |
| Where the model runs | Anthropic (US), under your Claude subscription | Anthropic (US), on your own API key | Even |
| Leaving | Cancel the subscription; your chats live in your Claude account | Download what your team produced, then archive. Your Anthropic key is yours and stays with you | |
| Running it | |||
| Getting started | No API key needed | You create an Anthropic API key once — about three minutes, and we walk you through it | Claude Cowork |
| Where it runs | Web, iOS and Android apps | Your browser — no installs, and no mobile apps yet | Claude Cowork |
Those last two rows are one story, not two: what we store stays in Azure UK South (London), and the model call itself runs at Anthropic in the United States on your own key, under your own contract with them. Where your data actually sits sets out all three layers.
The obvious objection
What about Claude Team?
The right question to ask, and Claude Team is a good product: shared workspaces, SSO, role-based permissions, central billing, spend controls, and Cowork included. On Team and Enterprise, Anthropic acts as your processor and there is a Data Processing Agreement to sign. So no — a company does not have to leave Anthropic to get a DPA, and we are not going to pretend otherwise.
Three differences worth pricing out, and only you can say which of them matter:
It is still one assistant per person
Team gives a company the administration around Cowork — accounts, permissions, billing, controls. It does not change the shape of the work: each person still steers one conversation. Brewyard's difference is not the admin panel, it is that the work is divided between agents that hand it to each other. If what you need is several people's worth of effort in parallel, more seats is a different answer to a different question.
A DPA says how. It does not say where.
Article 28 commits the processor to handling your data properly. It does not say which country it sits in — and EU or UK data residency is not among the features Anthropic lists for the Team plan. If the question coming at you is “which country is our data in”, that is the one a DPA on its own cannot answer, and it is the question this was built around.
Seats work differently here
Team is priced per seat. Brewyard counts seats by plan instead: one person on a Day Pass or Pro Monthly, up to three on Pro Annual, up to ten on Business. If two people in a five-person firm actually brief the agents, those two are who need a seat. Worth pricing both against the people who will really use them rather than your headcount on paper.
Not sure which side of that line you are on? That is a good conversation to have with us — tell us what the work looks like and we will tell you straight.
The other obvious objection
Can't we just run Claude in an EU region ourselves?
You can — Claude models run in AWS Bedrock's eu-central-1 and Google Vertex's europe-west1, and if European inference is your hard requirement, that route gives you something we do not: Brewyard runs inference on your own Anthropic key, at Anthropic, in the United States. We would rather you read that here than find it in our privacy policy.
What that route does not give you is everything around the model:
Someone has to build it, then keep it running
Bedrock and Vertex give you model access, not an agent team. The accounts, IAM, network, model-access approvals, the orchestration itself, session state, artifact storage and audit trail are all somebody's job — and somebody's job again next quarter. With a platform team this is a genuinely good option. Most studios of five to twenty people do not have that person free.
Hosting in the EU is not the same as EU jurisdiction
A Frankfurt region on a US-owned hyperscaler changes where your data is processed, not who holds jurisdiction over the company processing it. That is a fair question to put to any vendor, us included — and ours is answered on this site rather than on request: who the controller is, who the sub-processors are, how the data moves.
The paperwork does not come with the region
An AWS deployment gives you an AWS agreement about AWS. It does not give you an agreement with whoever wrote the orchestration, a sub-processor list for it, a published data flow, or an invoice with your VAT number. Build it yourself and you are your own processor, which is genuinely simpler. Buy it from someone and those four documents are what to ask for.
A billing alert is not a spend ceiling
Bedrock and Vertex will tell you spend crossed a threshold. Neither stops an agent team mid-run. Here the ceiling is enforced: warned at 75%, stopped at 95%, on a number you chose.
If you have the platform team and European inference is non-negotiable, build it on Bedrock — we would rather you heard that from us. If what you want is a team that orchestrates itself, from a vendor who publishes where your data is stored, invoices with your VAT number and stops the spend where you told it to, that is what this is.
Deciding
The questions that actually decide it
Does the work split, or doesn't it?
This is the whole question. Some work is one thread of thinking and splitting it only adds hand-offs — for that, one assistant is faster and we will not pretend otherwise. Other work has four things that could be happening at once and a person to keep them straight. That second kind is what a team is for, and it turns up in one-person studios as often as in fifty-person firms.
Whose data goes into it?
If it is only ever yours, this matters less and you should weigh it less. The moment client or company data is involved the questions change: where does it live, who processes it, what will you sign? Everything we store sits in Azure UK South (London), model inference runs on your own Anthropic account, and the sub-processor list is published on this site rather than offered on request.
Who pays, and how does accounting see it?
Brewyard separates the two on purpose: Anthropic bills your model usage on your own key at Anthropic's price, and we invoice the platform with your VAT number on it. Two clean lines in your accounts, and no markup hiding between them.
What happens when spend runs away?
It cannot get far. You set a monthly ceiling, the team is warned at 75% and stopped at 95% — enforced by the platform, not requested in a prompt. An autonomous team without a hard ceiling is a bill you did not agree to, which is why this one is a turn that does not start.
What if we already pay for Cowork?
Then keep it. They are not the same purchase and they do not cancel each other out — one assistant for the work you are steering yourself, a team for the work you would rather brief. Plenty of people will sensibly have both, and we would rather say so than pretend one replaces the other.
In short
Where this leaves you
If the thing in front of you fits in one conversation you steer, Cowork is the simpler tool and we would rather say that than sell you a team you do not need. If it needs several people's worth of effort at once — split up, handed between specialists, reviewed before it reaches you — that is orchestration, and that is what this is. When the work belongs to a client, the residency, the published agreement, the VAT invoice and the enforced ceiling are here waiting, rather than being the reason to come.