# Check vs Gusto > Check scores 67.5 (B) on agent readiness against Gusto's 63.3 (B), and leads in 4 of 7 scored categories. Gusto leads on schema & documentation and payments & pricing. Both do payroll run. Category scores, facts, verdicts and agent notes side by side. - Canonical: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/check-payroll-vs-gusto - Markdown: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/check-payroll-vs-gusto.md (~2,000 tokens) - Slim: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/check-payroll-vs-gusto.min.md (~730 tokens, same facts, less prose, for token-sensitive contexts) - JSON: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/check-payroll-vs-gusto.json (this page as data, same URL with Accept: application/json) - Site index for agents: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt (full text: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms-full.txt) - API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json - Updated: 2026-10-08 Check scores 67.5 (B) on agent readiness against Gusto's 63.3 (B), and leads in 4 of 7 scored categories. Gusto leads on schema & documentation and payments & pricing. Both do payroll run. - Check: grade B, 67.5/100, rank #193 of 629. Markdown https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/check-payroll.md · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/tools/check-payroll.json - Gusto: grade B, 63.3/100, rank #283 of 629. Markdown https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/gusto.md · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/tools/gusto.json ## Which one, for what ### Check (B) Good for: A software platform that wants to sell US payroll inside its own product and can sign a partnership, with Check handling tax calculation, money movement and filings. Ahead on: - Reliability, 80 against 58 - Security & auth, 74 against 60 Also in its favour: - A hosted endpoint, with nothing to install Watch for: No public price and no self-serve signup. The documentation says to request an API key through Check's sales contact ### Gusto (B) Good for: A software platform that wants to run US payroll for its own customers and can pass Gusto's partner reviews. Ahead on: - Schema & documentation, 86 against 78 - Payments & pricing, 15 against 5 Watch for: Production keys need commercial, security and implementation reviews with Gusto's partnerships team, and the docs say not all use cases are supported ## Score by category | Category | Weight | Check | Gusto | Edge | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Reliability | 16% (20 this run) | 80 | 58 | Check +22 | | Performance | 10%, pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run | | Schema & documentation | 13% (16.2 this run) | 78 | 86 | Gusto +8 | | Agent ergonomics | 13% (16.2 this run) | 83 | 82 | Check +1 | | Security & auth | 14% (17.5 this run) | 74 | 60 | Check +14 | | Payments & pricing | 10% (12.5 this run) | 5 | 15 | Gusto +10 | | Task success | 10%, pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run | | Maintenance & community | 7% (8.8 this run) | 72 | 76 | Gusto +4 | | Transparency & trust | 7% (8.8 this run) | 62 | 61 | Check +1 | | Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | | | **Total** | | **67.5 · B** | **63.3 · B** | | ## Facts side by side | Fact | Check | Gusto | | --- | --- | --- | | Kind | HTTP API | HTTP API | | Vendor | Check Technologies, Inc. | Gusto, Inc. | | Hosted endpoint | `https://api.checkhq.com` | no (local only) | | Transports | HTTP | HTTP | | Auth | OAuth or key | OAuth | | Pricing | Paid | Paid | | x402 | no | no | | Licence | Proprietary service under Check's terms of service and partner agreement. The MCP server and CLI on GitHub are MIT | Proprietary service under Gusto's API Policy and Developer Terms of Service. The API clients on GitHub are MIT, and the React SDK and the Gusto CLI are Apache-2.0 | | Read-only variant documented | yes | no | | llms.txt | yes | yes | | Last release | 2026-10-07 | 2026-10-01 | | Terms last updated | 2021-09-03 | couldn't be read | | Privacy policy last updated | 2024-04-18 | no document linked | | Customer content may train models | not found in the text | couldn't be read | | Terms restrict automated access | yes | couldn't be read | | Terms restrict benchmarking | not found in the text | couldn't be read | | Terms or service can change without notice | not found in the text | couldn't be read | | Arbitration or class-action waiver | not found in the text | couldn't be read | | Popularity | 18 stars | 2 stars, 25k npm/wk | ## Verdicts **Check.** Graded as embedded payroll through a partner API key, not access to an existing employer's payroll account. The API has idempotency keys on writes, a required preview before approval and queryable request logs. No price is public, a sandbox key comes through Check's sales team, and one API key carries the whole partner account. **Gusto.** This listing covers the Embedded Payroll API. Every reference page carries an OpenAPI 3.1 definition, payroll is calculated as a preview before submission, and each API version gets 12 months of deprecation support. Production needs commercial and security approval, no price was readable, and the status page lists 11 incidents between 14 July and 5 October 2026, five marked major. ## Before you call either ### Check 1. Use https://sandbox.checkhq.com with the sandbox key and https://api.checkhq.com with the production key. A key is not valid across environments 2. Preview a payroll before approving it, then pass `preview_started_at` to POST /payrolls/{id}/approve so a stale preview fails with 409 3. Send `X-Idempotency-Key` on every write. Keys expire after 24 hours, so list the resource before retrying later than that 4. On 429 wait for `Retry-After`. The limit is 10 requests a second in sandbox and for partners paying fewer than 1,000 payees a month, with 100 concurrent requests 5. Connect the MCP server with `?read_only=true` or `X-MCP-Readonly: true` unless writes are intended. In production, approving a payroll moves money ### Gusto 1. Develop against https://api.gusto-demo.com. Production at https://api.gusto.com needs keys Gusto issues after its reviews 2. Send `X-Gusto-API-Version: 2026-06-15` on every call. Without it the application's minimum version applies 3. Send the resource's current `version` with every PUT, and only the fields to change. A stale version returns 409 4. Calculate and submit return 202. Poll GET on the payroll until `calculated_at` is set or the status is processed, and read `submission_blockers` first 5. For a company already on Gusto, the Embedded API is the wrong route. Use the Gusto CLI or the MCP server at https://mcp.api.gusto.com, which draft payroll but can't submit it ## Questions ### Which is better for AI agents, Check or Gusto? Check scores 67.5 (B) on agent readiness against Gusto's 63.3 (B), and leads in 4 of 7 scored categories. Gusto leads on schema & documentation and payments & pricing. ### Do Check and Gusto need an API key? Check takes an API key or an OAuth sign-in. Gusto uses an OAuth sign-in. ### Can an agent call Check and Gusto without installing anything? Check has a hosted endpoint at https://api.checkhq.com. No hosted endpoint is listed for Gusto. ## For agents - This comparison as JSON: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/check-payroll-vs-gusto.json, and with the fewest tokens: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/check-payroll-vs-gusto.min.md - Over MCP at https://www.anchorterminal.com/mcp (no key): `compare_tools {"a": "check-payroll", "b": "gusto"}`. From a terminal: `anchor compare check-payroll gusto` - Each listing in full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/tools/check-payroll.json and https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/tools/gusto.json ## Other comparisons with Check or Gusto - [Check vs Salsa](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/check-payroll-vs-salsa.md) - [Check vs Zeal](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/check-payroll-vs-zeal.md) - [Gusto vs Salsa](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gusto-vs-salsa.md) - [Gusto vs Zeal](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gusto-vs-zeal.md) - [Check vs Finch](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/check-payroll-vs-finch.md) - [Finch vs Gusto](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/finch-vs-gusto.md)