| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 13 decomposed | 8 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Ingests production execution traces (prompts, responses, tool calls, latency, cost metadata) from AI applications via native SDKs (Python, TypeScript, Go, Ruby, C#) and stores them in Braintrust's proprietary Brainstore database optimized for nested AI data structures. The system handles millions of traces with full-text search and supports querying large, deeply-nested trace hierarchies without flattening. Traces are retained for 14 days (Starter), 30 days (Pro), or custom periods (Enterprise), with per-GB pricing ($4/GB overage on Starter, $3/GB on Pro).
Unique: Proprietary Brainstore database designed specifically for AI observability with claimed 0.0x faster full-text search and 0.00x faster write latency vs. competitors; handles nested trace structures natively without flattening, enabling structurally-aware queries across multi-turn conversations and chained tool calls
vs alternatives: Faster trace querying and storage than generic observability platforms (Datadog, New Relic) because Brainstore is purpose-built for AI trace schemas rather than generic logs
Evaluates AI application outputs using three scoring approaches: (1) LLM-as-judge evaluators that use Claude or GPT-4 to score responses against custom rubrics, (2) code-based scorers written in Python/TypeScript that implement custom logic (regex, semantic similarity, domain-specific checks), and (3) human evaluators who manually score outputs via annotation UI. Scores are tracked per evaluation run with versioning, and automated quality gates can block deployments if scores fall below thresholds. Pricing is per-1k scores ($2.50/1k on Starter, $1.50/1k on Pro, with 10k/50k monthly included respectively).
Unique: Unified evaluation framework supporting three scoring modalities (LLM-as-judge, code-based, human) with automatic regression detection in CI/CD pipelines; integrates directly with version control to block deployments based on score thresholds, enabling quality gates without custom orchestration
vs alternatives: More integrated than point solutions (Weights & Biases, Arize) because evaluation, tracing, and deployment gates are unified in one platform rather than requiring separate tools
Enterprise-grade access control with role-based permissions (viewer, editor, admin) and SAML/OAuth SSO integration for identity management. Supports fine-grained permissions on projects, datasets, and evaluations. SAML SSO enables centralized authentication via corporate identity providers (Okta, Azure AD, etc.). Available on Pro/Enterprise tiers; Starter tier has basic roles only. Enterprise tier supports custom RBAC policies and BAA (HIPAA) agreements.
Unique: SAML SSO and fine-grained RBAC with HIPAA BAA support; unlike consumer-grade platforms, Enterprise tier enables centralized identity management and compliance-grade access control for regulated industries
vs alternatives: More compliant than basic role systems because SAML SSO integrates with corporate identity providers and HIPAA BAA enables handling of protected health information
Compares evaluation scores across prompt versions, model changes, or time periods to detect regressions and improvements. Generates comparison reports showing score deltas, statistical significance (if applicable), and affected test cases. Supports baseline selection (previous version, main branch, or custom baseline). Regression alerts can be configured to notify teams when scores drop below thresholds. Comparison results are visualized in dashboards and can be exported for reporting.
Unique: Automated regression detection across evaluation runs with configurable baselines and alerts; unlike manual comparison, regression analysis is integrated into the evaluation workflow and can block deployments if thresholds are violated
vs alternatives: More integrated than external analytics tools because regression detection is built into the evaluation platform rather than requiring post-hoc analysis
Provides SOC 2 Type II, GDPR, and HIPAA compliance certifications with Business Associate Agreement (BAA) available on Enterprise tier. Implements data governance controls including encryption, access logging, and data residency options. Supports on-premises or hosted deployment for Enterprise customers requiring data sovereignty.
Unique: Provides multiple compliance certifications (SOC 2, GDPR, HIPAA) as standard features rather than add-ons, treating compliance as a core platform concern. On-premises deployment option enables data sovereignty for regulated industries.
vs alternatives: More compliant than generic observability platforms because it's specifically designed for regulated industries; more flexible than cloud-only solutions because on-premises deployment is available for Enterprise customers.
Web-based IDE for iterating on prompts with real-time execution against live LLM APIs (OpenAI, Anthropic, etc.). Supports side-by-side A/B comparison of prompt versions, variable templating, and environment-specific configuration (dev/staging/prod with different models or parameters). Prompt versions are automatically versioned and tagged with metadata (author, timestamp, environment). Playground annotations enable inline comments on prompt iterations. Available on Pro tier and above; Starter tier has no playground access.
Unique: Integrated playground with environment-aware prompt versioning and A/B comparison UI; unlike standalone prompt editors, versions are automatically linked to evaluation results and deployment history, enabling traceability from prompt iteration to production performance
vs alternatives: More integrated than PromptHub or Prompt.com because playground results are directly comparable to evaluation scores and production traces in the same platform
Centralized repository for organizing evaluation test cases (inputs, expected outputs, metadata) with automatic versioning and branching. Datasets can be created from production traces (sampling real user inputs), manually uploaded (CSV/JSON), or generated by the Loop agent. Datasets are tagged with metadata (version, author, creation date) and can be filtered by attributes. Supports exporting datasets for use in external evaluation frameworks. Dataset versions are immutable, enabling reproducible evaluations across time.
Unique: Immutable dataset versioning with automatic sampling from production traces; unlike generic test management tools, datasets are directly linked to evaluation runs and prompt versions, enabling traceability of which test set was used for each evaluation decision
vs alternatives: More integrated than external test frameworks (pytest, Jest) because datasets are versioned alongside evaluation results and prompt history in a single system
Integrates with CI/CD pipelines (GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, etc.) to automatically run evaluations on prompt or model changes and block deployments if quality scores regress below configured thresholds. Compares current evaluation results against baseline (previous version or main branch) and generates pass/fail reports. Supports custom quality gates (e.g., 'accuracy must stay above 90%' or 'latency must not increase by >10%'). Integration is framework-agnostic and triggered via webhook or API calls from CI/CD runners.
Unique: Automated regression detection integrated directly into CI/CD pipelines with configurable quality gates; unlike manual evaluation workflows, changes are automatically evaluated against baselines and deployments are blocked if thresholds are violated, enabling quality gates without human intervention
vs alternatives: More automated than manual evaluation processes because regressions are detected before deployment rather than after production issues occur
+5 more capabilities
Evaluates LLM safety across 7 distinct categories (offensiveness, unfairness, physical health, mental health, illegal activities, ethics, privacy) using 11,435 curated multiple-choice questions available in both Chinese and English. The benchmark constructs category-specific prompts, sends them to target models, extracts predicted answers from model responses, and compares against ground-truth labels (0->A, 1->B, 2->C, 3->D) to compute accuracy metrics per category and overall safety score.
Unique: Combines 11,435 questions across 7 safety categories with explicit Chinese-English parallel coverage and a filtered subset (test_zh_subset.json) for sensitive keyword handling, enabling systematic cross-lingual safety assessment. Uses category-stratified few-shot examples (5 per category) to support both zero-shot and five-shot evaluation paradigms within a single framework.
vs alternatives: Larger and more category-diverse than single-domain safety benchmarks (e.g., ToxiGen for toxicity only), and explicitly supports Chinese alongside English, addressing a gap in multilingual safety evaluation infrastructure.
Supports two distinct evaluation paradigms: zero-shot (questions presented directly without examples) and five-shot (5 category-specific examples provided before each test question). The framework conditionally constructs prompts using dev_en.json/dev_zh.json few-shot examples or omits them entirely, allowing researchers to measure how in-context learning affects safety performance. Prompt templates are language-aware and can be customized per model to improve answer extraction accuracy.
Unique: Provides curated few-shot examples stratified by safety category (5 per category) rather than random sampling, ensuring balanced representation of each harm type. Prompt templates are explicitly customizable per model (e.g., evaluate_baichuan.py shows Baichuan-specific extraction logic), acknowledging that different architectures require different prompting strategies.
More systematic than ad-hoc few-shot selection; category-stratified examples ensure consistent coverage of all safety dimensions rather than potentially biased random sampling.
SafetyBench Eval scores higher at 63/100 vs Braintrust at 60/100. Braintrust leads on quality, while SafetyBench Eval is stronger on ecosystem.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Manages parallel Chinese and English datasets (test_en.json, test_zh.json, dev_en.json, dev_zh.json) with a filtered Chinese subset (test_zh_subset.json, 300 questions per category) for sensitive keyword handling. Data acquisition uses Hugging Face hosting with dual download methods (shell script download_data.sh or Python download_data.py with datasets library). Each question maintains consistent structure (id, category, question, options, answer) across languages, enabling direct cross-lingual comparison of model safety performance.
Unique: Provides both full Chinese dataset (test_zh.json) and a filtered subset (test_zh_subset.json with 300 questions per category) explicitly designed to avoid sensitive keywords, addressing practical concerns about evaluating on content that may trigger platform policies. Dual download methods (shell script and Python) reduce friction for different user workflows.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive multilingual coverage than English-only benchmarks; filtered subset is a pragmatic addition for teams needing to evaluate without policy violations.
Computes accuracy metrics per safety category (offensiveness, unfairness, physical health, mental health, illegal activities, ethics, privacy) and aggregates to an overall safety score. Supports standardized leaderboard submission via JSON format (question_id -> predicted_answer). Metrics are computed by comparing predicted answers (extracted from model responses) against ground-truth labels, enabling fine-grained analysis of which safety dimensions a model excels or fails on. Results can be submitted to llmbench.ai/safety leaderboard for public comparison.
Unique: Stratifies metrics across 7 explicit safety categories rather than computing a single aggregate score, enabling fine-grained diagnosis of safety weaknesses. Leaderboard integration (llmbench.ai/safety) provides public benchmarking infrastructure, creating accountability and enabling direct model comparison.
vs alternatives: Category-level metrics provide more actionable insights than single-number safety scores; leaderboard integration drives standardization and reproducibility across the research community.
Implements a standardized evaluation pipeline (exemplified in evaluate_baichuan.py) that constructs prompts, sends them to a target model via API or local inference, extracts predicted answers from model responses using model-specific parsing logic, and validates extracted answers against expected format (0->A, 1->B, 2->C, 3->D). The pipeline handles model-specific response formats and can be customized per model architecture. Supports batch evaluation of all 11,435 questions with error handling and logging.
Unique: Provides a concrete, model-specific evaluation implementation (evaluate_baichuan.py) that can be forked and adapted, rather than just a dataset. Acknowledges that different models require different answer extraction logic and provides a template for customization. Supports both zero-shot and few-shot evaluation within the same pipeline.
vs alternatives: More practical than dataset-only benchmarks because it includes reference evaluation code; reduces barrier to entry for teams without evaluation infrastructure.
Defines a structured taxonomy of 7 safety categories (offensiveness, unfairness, physical health, mental health, illegal activities, ethics, privacy) and curates 11,435 diverse multiple-choice questions mapped to these categories. Each question is designed to test whether a model correctly handles or refuses harmful content within that category. The taxonomy is explicit and mutually exclusive, enabling fine-grained safety analysis. Questions are curated to be challenging and representative of real-world safety concerns.
Unique: Explicitly defines 7 non-overlapping safety categories and curates 11,435 questions to cover them systematically, providing a structured taxonomy rather than ad-hoc safety testing. The taxonomy is comprehensive enough to cover major harm types (physical, mental, legal, ethical, privacy) while remaining tractable for evaluation.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive and structured than single-category benchmarks (e.g., toxicity-only); provides a holistic safety assessment framework that aligns with regulatory and safety research perspectives.
Provides two download methods for SafetyBench datasets: shell script (download_data.sh) and Python script (download_data.py using Hugging Face datasets library). The architecture leverages Hugging Face Hub for dataset hosting and distribution, enabling one-command dataset acquisition with automatic decompression and directory structure creation. The Python method uses the datasets library for programmatic access, supporting integration into automated evaluation pipelines without manual file management.
Unique: Provides dual download methods (shell script and Python) leveraging Hugging Face Hub for distribution, enabling both manual and programmatic dataset acquisition with automatic decompression and directory structure creation.
vs alternatives: More convenient than manual downloads by providing automated acquisition scripts, and more reproducible than email-based dataset distribution by using Hugging Face Hub as a stable, versioned repository
Computes accuracy metrics stratified by safety category, enabling per-dimension performance analysis. The evaluation pipeline aggregates predictions across all questions in each category (offensiveness, unfairness, physical health, mental health, illegal activities, ethics, privacy) and computes category-specific accuracy scores. This architecture enables identification of category-specific vulnerabilities (e.g., a model may be robust on ethics but weak on physical health) without requiring separate evaluation runs.
Unique: Automatically stratifies accuracy metrics by safety category, enabling fine-grained vulnerability analysis without requiring separate evaluation runs. Provides per-category scores that reveal category-specific weaknesses.
vs alternatives: More diagnostic than aggregate safety scores by breaking down performance by harm category, enabling targeted safety improvements rather than black-box optimization