---
title: "Zep"
type: "AI Tool"
url: "https://aidemos.com/tools/zep"
description: "We tested Zep by feeding user style, client history, project direction, and scope boundaries; it surfaced context well, but stale memory still resurfaced."
category: "developer-tools"
website: "https://www.getzep.com/"
published: "2026-07-15T08:31:46.554774+00:00"
updated: "2026-07-15T08:31:46.554774+00:00"
---

# Zep

Developer-first memory for AI agents that captures workflow context well, but still needs stronger stale-memory and forget control.

`Multi-session memory` · `Client support context` · `Scope isolation` · `Forget control tested`

**Website:** [Visit Zep](https://www.getzep.com/)

> **Strong context memory, weaker lifecycle control**
>
> Zep is a strong developer-first memory layer for agent workflows. It captured user style, client history, project direction, and scope boundaries well, and the graph/UI made remembered context easy to inspect. The main weakness is lifecycle control: outdated client context and a forgotten preference still resurfaced after later corrections.

## Demo Recording

[Video: Zep demo recording](https://d3epheqghktydj.cloudfront.net/zep-zep-ai-demo-walkthrough-3c698a08349c.mp4)
*Video — Demo walkthrough used during the test harness review.*

## Feature-by-Feature Breakdown

### Persistent Memory Capture and Reuse

**Verdict:** Strong

Stores user, customer, and project context and applies it later. In testing, Zep reused the founder's short direct style, remembered prior troubleshooting steps, and preserved project framing well enough to help with a later handoff note.

**Input:**

```
Session 1 under user_id founder_001: "I run a small AI product/research team. When you help me, remember how I work: keep outputs short, direct, and copy-paste ready; do not make writing sound too polished or motivational; always mention what proof or artifact is needed before making a strong claim; if a task is risky or unclear, tell me the safest next step instead of guessing."
```

**Output:**

**Input:**

```
Session 2 under user_id founder_001: ask for a short internal update about testing memory tools for an AI memory use case, with the user asking to show that memory supports real work continuity across days.
```

**Output:**

**Input:**

```
Session 3 under user_id founder_001: ask for a formal email to a potential enterprise partner about a product demo next week, with a professional tone.
```

**Output:**

**Input:**

```
Session 1 under account_id client_acme_001: ACME is a client using our AI support assistant. They prefer clear next steps and do not like repeated troubleshooting. Their team already tried password reset, clearing browser cache, and switching browsers. The issue is still happening only for users with SSO enabled.
```

**Output:**

**Input:**

```
Session 2 under account_id client_acme_001: ACME came back and said their users still cannot log in with SSO. Draft a support reply that respects what they already tried and moves to the next useful step.
```

**Output:**

**Input:**

```
Session 1 under project_id ai_demos_memory_use_case: We are working on an AI Demos use case called Memory for AI Agents. The goal is to help users understand which memory tools are actually useful for real agent workflows. We are not promoting any tool. We are testing whether memory can help with real continuity: personal work brain, client relationship memory, and team handoff.
```

**Output:**

**Input:**

```
Session 2 under project_id ai_demos_memory_use_case: capture the important project rules, especially proof-first observations, screenshots/artifacts as evidence, and practical user-facing evaluation.
```

**Output:**

**Input:**

```
Session 3 under project_id ai_demos_memory_use_case: the project direction changed from QA-style inputs to real workflows: personal work brain memory, client relationship memory, and team handoff/project continuity memory.
```

**Output:**

**Input:**

```
Session 4 under project_id ai_demos_memory_use_case: create a handoff note for an intern who needs to continue the use case, including what the use case is about, the current testing direction, the rules to follow, and what artifacts to capture.
```

**Output:**

**Bottom line:** Strong: Zep reliably remembered the founder's work style and reused it later without flattening every task into the same tone.

### Memory Correction and Update Propagation

**Verdict:** Failure

Accepts a correction to active memory and is meant to replace stale context with the new version. In the tested case, Zep acknowledged the update but later still reused the older SSO-based context.

**Input:**

```
Session 3 under account_id client_acme_001: Update the client memory so ACME is no longer using SSO for this rollout. They moved to email-password login for the first launch. Do not keep talking about SSO in the active issue unless they mention it again.
```

**Output:**

**Input:**

```
Session 4 under account_id client_acme_001: ACME says some users are still unable to log in during launch testing. Draft the next support reply.
```

**Output:**

**Bottom line:** Failed: Zep acknowledged the update, but the stale SSO context still drove the later answer, which is a serious memory lifecycle problem.

### Memory Scope Isolation

**Verdict:** Strong

Keeps memories separated across customers and projects so context from one thread does not leak into another. In the tested cases, ACME history did not transfer to BetaCorp, and a separate project did not inherit the AI Demos rules.

**Input:**

```
Session 5 under client_beta_002: BetaCorp is a new client. They say their users cannot log in for the first time. Draft the first support reply for BetaCorp.
```

**Output:**

**Input:**

```
Session 5 under project_id unrelated_sales_agent_project: We are building a sales email agent for a different project. Create a short kickoff note for the team.
```

**Output:**

**Bottom line:** Strong: Zep kept client and project memories separated in the tested cases.

### Memory Observability and Graph Inspection

**Verdict:** Useful but uneven

Surfaces Zep's own native entity graph for inspecting stored memory — nodes, relationships, and per-node metadata (summary, labels, connections) are all visible and clickable directly in Zep's dashboard.

**Input:**

```
Inspect the memory graph after the founder work-style memory and project memories were stored, and open a node detail panel for one of the connected entities.
```

**Output:**

**Input:**

```
Open the node detail panel for a selected entity from the graph.
```

**Output:**

**Bottom line:** Strong: Zep's native entity graph gives developers real visibility into how memories connect, including an inspectable node detail panel — not a black box.

### Memory Deletion and Forgetting

**Verdict:** Failure

Handles explicit requests to stop using or forget remembered information at the conversation level. In testing, Zep acknowledged the request, but the old preference still influenced the next reply.

**Input:**

```
Session 1 under user_id delete_memory_001: Remember this preference: whenever you write updates for me, use a very formal corporate tone.
```

**Output:**

**Input:**

```
Session 2 under user_id delete_memory_001: Forget this preference. Do not keep using the formal corporate tone anymore.
```

**Output:**

**Input:**

```
Session 3 under user_id delete_memory_001: Write a short internal update about today's memory-tool testing work.
```

**Output:**

**Bottom line:** Failed: Zep acknowledged the request to forget, but the old memory still shaped the next response.

## Plans observed in the report

Testing was done on the free plan.

| Plan | Price | Notes |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Free (tested) | 10,000 credits/month; 2 projects | Includes the entity graph on the free tier. |
| Flex | $125/month; 50,000 credits |  |
| Flex Plus | $375/month; 200,000 credits |  |
| Enterprise | Custom pricing | SLA guarantees, BYOK, retention controls, and audit logs. |

*The report says all testing used the free plan.*

## Is It Right For You?

**Use it if**
- You need an API/SDK-backed memory layer for agents.
- You want user, customer, and project context persisted across sessions.
- You need inspectable summaries, entities, and graph views for debugging.

**Skip it if**
- You need reliable forget/delete enforcement right now.
- You cannot tolerate stale context resurfacing after corrections.
- You want a plug-and-play end-user chat app instead of memory infrastructure.

## Classification

- **Category:** developer-tools
- **Subcategory:** agent-platforms
- **Type:** text

## Frequently Asked Questions

**Q: Does Zep remember user preferences across sessions?**

Yes. In the founder-work test, Zep remembered a direct, copy-paste-ready working style and reused it later without the user repeating the instruction.

**Q: Does Zep avoid repeating already-tried troubleshooting steps?**

Yes in the initial ACME follow-up. It did not repeat password reset, cache clearing, or browser switching, and moved to more useful SSO/IdP-level steps.

**Q: Can Zep update memory when a correction is given?**

It can acknowledge a correction, but the test showed a weakness: after ACME moved from SSO to email-password login, the later reply still reused SSO-focused troubleshooting.

**Q: Can Zep forget a memory when asked?**

It acknowledged the forget request, but the old formal-tone preference still affected the next internal update, so the forget behavior was not reliable in this test.

**Q: Does Zep keep different users and projects isolated?**

Yes. BetaCorp did not inherit ACME's SSO history, and a separate sales-agent project did not inherit the AI Demos memory-use-case context.

**Q: Does Zep have a UI for inspecting memory?**

Yes, partially. Zep's own dashboard includes a native entity graph — clicking any node shows its name, summary, labels, and relationships. The 'memory panel' showing summaries, episodes, facts, and entities during chat testing was part of this report's custom test interface, not Zep's own product screen — it renders data returned by Zep's API.

**Q: What plans and pricing were observed?**

The report lists a Free plan with 10,000 credits/month and 2 projects, Flex at $125/month, Flex Plus at $375/month, and Enterprise with custom pricing. Testing in this report was done on the free plan.

**Q: What is the main weakness found in testing?**

Stale-memory and delete/forget control. Zep could capture and retrieve useful context, but older client context and a forgotten preference still resurfaced after later corrections or forget requests.

**Q: Was a custom interface used to test Zep?**

Yes. Test prompts were sent and screenshots captured through a custom-built chat interface for this benchmark — it is not Zep's own end-user product. Zep's actual native UI is its Cloud dashboard, which includes the entity graph referenced in this report.

## Similar Tools

AI tools similar to Zep:

- [Mem0](https://aidemos.com/tools/mem0) — Mem0 remembers useful agent context across sessions and makes retrieved memory visible, but stale context can linger after updates or forget requests.
- [Hindsight](https://aidemos.com/tools/hindsight) — Selective, inspectable memory for real agent workflows, with strong retrieval and scope control.
- [Supermemory](https://aidemos.com/tools/supermemory) — Hosted agent memory with strong capture and scoping, but mixed retrieval and weak forget behavior.
- [Cognee](https://aidemos.com/tools/cognee) — Inspectable graph-backed memory for AI agents, with strong provenance tracing but cautious update/delete behavior.