> ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.cogniagent.ai/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # Cowork vs workflows vs conversation flows > Three ways to put AI to work in CogniAgent. Here's which one fits the job in front of you — and how to tell when you've picked wrong. CogniAgent gives you three ways to get work done automatically. They look similar from a distance and they are not interchangeable. Picking the right one matters more than how well you configure it. ## The short answer | You want… | Use | Because | | ------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------- | | A judgement call made, or a messy job figured out | **A coworker** | The steps depend on what it finds | | The same steps run the same way, every time | **[A workflow](/applications/define-workflow)** | The steps never change | | A conversation held with a customer | **[A conversation flow](/conversation-flows/overview)** | Someone is on the other end | ## The real distinction It isn't about complexity. Plenty of workflows are more complicated than anything a coworker does. It's about **whether you can write the steps down in advance.** If you can — "when an order arrives, check stock, then email the customer, then update the sheet" — a workflow does it faster, cheaper, and identically every time. Predictability is the feature. If you can't — "find out why this customer churned" — then no flowchart survives contact with the answer. What you need is something that decides the next step based on what the last one turned up. That's a coworker. A useful test: could you hand this to a new starter as a written checklist, and would they get it right? If yes, build a workflow. If they'd have to use judgement, hire a coworker. ## Side by side | | Coworker | Workflow | Conversation flow | | ------------------------- | -------------------------- | ----------------------- | ---------------------- | | **You give it** | A goal | A sequence of steps | A conversation design | | **Decides its own steps** | Yes | No | Within the design | | **Same result every run** | Similar, not identical | Identical | Varies by conversation | | **Cost per run** | Higher | Lower | Depends on length | | **Speed** | Slower — it's thinking | Fast | Real time | | **Best at** | Open-ended, one-off, messy | Repetitive, high volume | Talking to people | | **Handles surprises** | Adapts | Fails or branches | Within the design | | **You review** | The result | Exceptions | Transcripts | ## Signs you picked wrong **You built a workflow and it keeps breaking.** Every failure adds another branch, and the diagram has more error handling than logic. The job needed judgement. Hand it to a coworker. **You use a coworker for the same thing every day and always get the same answer.** You're paying for thinking that isn't needed. Build a workflow — or have your coworker build one for you, which it can do with [workflows and flows](/cowork/capabilities/workflows-and-flows) switched on. **Your conversation flow keeps hitting questions it wasn't designed for.** Some of those may belong to a coworker working behind it. ## They work together This isn't a choice you make once for the whole company. The strongest setups use all three: * A **workflow** handles the volume — every order, every ticket, every form * It escalates the odd ones to a **coworker**, which can research, decide and act * A **conversation flow** handles the customer-facing dialogue, and a coworker does the work behind it A coworker can start your workflows and read what came out of them. See [Running your workflows and flows](/cowork/capabilities/workflows-and-flows). ## Common questions No — it does something a workflow can't, which is decide. If the steps are fixed, a workflow is genuinely the better tool and you shouldn't pay for reasoning you don't need. Yes. Describe what you want automated and it proposes one; you approve before anything is created. It's a good way to turn work you've been doing manually into something repeatable. A coworker, if you're evaluating. It's the fastest thing to get value from — hire one and give it a real task in [ten minutes](/cowork/quickstart) with nothing to configure. Yes, and it's a common pattern — the workflow handles the routine cases at volume and passes anything unusual to a coworker to sort out. ## Next steps Try a coworker in ten minutes. The mental model. For work that never varies. For talking to customers.