| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Starting Price | $39/mo | — |
| Capabilities | 12 decomposed | 14 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Captures hierarchical execution traces across LLM calls, chain steps, and agent actions by instrumenting LangChain runtime via SDK hooks and context propagation. Traces include token counts, latencies, inputs/outputs, and error states, visualized as interactive DAGs showing call dependencies and performance bottlenecks. Uses span-based tracing architecture similar to OpenTelemetry but optimized for LLM-specific metadata (model names, temperature, token usage).
Unique: Implements LLM-specific span semantics (token counting, model attribution, cost tracking) natively in the tracing layer rather than as post-hoc analysis, enabling real-time cost and performance insights without additional instrumentation
vs alternatives: Tighter LangChain integration than generic APM tools (Datadog, New Relic) means zero boilerplate and automatic capture of LLM-specific context; deeper than Langfuse's trace visualization for chain-level debugging
Centralized registry for storing, versioning, and deploying LLM prompts with git-like commit history, branching, and rollback capabilities. Prompts are stored as immutable versions linked to evaluation results and production deployments. Supports templating with Jinja2 or Handlebars for dynamic variable injection, and integrates with LangChain's LLMChain to pull prompts at runtime via semantic versioning (e.g., 'my-prompt@latest' or 'my-prompt@v2.3').
Unique: Integrates prompt versioning directly with evaluation runs and production traces, creating a closed-loop system where each prompt version is automatically linked to its performance metrics and deployment history
vs alternatives: More integrated than standalone prompt managers (PromptHub, Hugging Face Model Hub) because versions are tied to LangSmith traces and evaluations, enabling direct performance comparison without manual correlation
Monitors trace metrics (latency, error rate, token usage, cost) in real-time and triggers alerts when metrics exceed thresholds or deviate from baseline patterns. Uses statistical anomaly detection (z-score, moving average) to identify unusual behavior without manual threshold configuration. Supports multiple notification channels (email, Slack, webhooks) and integrates with incident management platforms.
Unique: Implements statistical anomaly detection directly on trace metrics, enabling automatic baseline learning without manual threshold configuration, and supports LLM-specific metrics (token usage, cost) that generic monitoring tools don't understand
vs alternatives: More specialized for LLM metrics than generic monitoring tools (Datadog, New Relic); simpler to configure than building custom anomaly detection pipelines
Exposes REST and GraphQL APIs for querying traces, running evaluations, managing datasets, and accessing evaluation results programmatically. Enables building custom dashboards, integrating with external analysis tools, or automating evaluation workflows. APIs support filtering, pagination, and bulk operations. Authentication via API keys with role-based access control.
Unique: Exposes both REST and GraphQL APIs with full trace context available, enabling complex queries and custom analysis. Supports bulk operations for efficient data export.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than webhook-only integrations because it provides query access to historical data, not just event notifications.
Manages labeled datasets (inputs, expected outputs, metadata) and runs evaluation jobs that execute chains against dataset examples, computing both built-in metrics (exact match, token overlap, semantic similarity via embeddings) and custom Python-defined metrics. Evaluation results are aggregated into scorecards showing pass rates, latency distributions, and cost breakdowns per model or prompt version. Supports batch evaluation with configurable concurrency and retry logic.
Unique: Embeds evaluation as a first-class workflow tied to prompt versions and traces, enabling automatic evaluation on every prompt change and creating a continuous feedback loop between development and production performance
vs alternatives: More integrated than standalone evaluation frameworks (DeepEval, Ragas) because evaluation results are automatically linked to prompt versions and traces, eliminating manual correlation; supports custom metrics without external dependencies
Provides a web UI for human annotators to review LLM outputs from production traces, assign labels (correct/incorrect, quality ratings, category tags), and add free-form feedback. Annotations are stored as structured records linked to the original trace and can be exported as labeled datasets for fine-tuning or retraining evaluation models. Supports collaborative workflows with role-based access (viewer, annotator, admin) and bulk operations for labeling multiple examples.
Unique: Integrates annotation directly into the observability platform, allowing annotators to review traces with full execution context (chain steps, token counts, latency) rather than isolated outputs, enabling more informed labeling decisions
vs alternatives: Tighter integration with LLM traces than generic labeling platforms (Label Studio, Prodigy) because annotators see the full chain execution context; simpler than building custom annotation UIs but less flexible than specialized labeling tools
Automatically extracts and aggregates token counts and API costs from LLM calls across multiple providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Cohere, Azure, local models) by parsing model names and pricing tables. Provides dashboards showing cost per trace, per user, per prompt version, and per model, with drill-down capabilities to identify expensive chains. Supports custom pricing rules for self-hosted or fine-tuned models. Costs are calculated in real-time during trace collection and stored with each span.
Unique: Embeds cost calculation directly in the tracing layer with support for multi-provider pricing tables, enabling real-time cost attribution without post-hoc analysis or external billing systems
vs alternatives: More granular cost tracking than cloud provider billing dashboards (AWS, Azure) because costs are attributed to individual traces and prompt versions; more comprehensive than LLM-specific cost tools (Helicone) for teams using multiple providers
Groups traces by user ID, session ID, or custom tags to enable conversation-level and user-level analysis. Provides session timelines showing all traces for a user in chronological order, with filtering by date range, model, or trace status. Supports session-level metrics (total cost, total tokens, conversation length) and enables bulk operations (e.g., export all traces for a user, delete traces for a user). Session data is indexed for fast retrieval and supports multi-tenant isolation.
Unique: Implements session-level indexing and aggregation at the trace storage layer, enabling fast retrieval of all traces for a user without scanning the entire trace database
vs alternatives: More efficient than querying traces by user ID in generic observability tools because session grouping is a first-class concept; enables compliance workflows (GDPR deletion) that generic APM tools don't support natively
+4 more capabilities
Intercepts training loops and model operations through Python SDK monkey-patching of popular frameworks (PyTorch, TensorFlow, scikit-learn, XGBoost) to automatically capture metrics, hyperparameters, gradients, and system resources without explicit logging calls. Uses a Task object that wraps the training context and streams telemetry to a central server in real-time or batched mode.
Unique: Uses framework-level monkey-patching to intercept training operations across PyTorch, TensorFlow, and scikit-learn without requiring code changes, combined with a centralized Task context object that manages metric buffering and async streaming to the server
vs alternatives: Requires zero code changes to existing training scripts unlike Weights & Biases or Neptune, which require explicit logging calls, though this comes at the cost of potential instrumentation conflicts
Manages training datasets as versioned artifacts using content-addressable storage (SHA256-based deduplication) with support for local, S3, GCS, and Azure Blob Storage backends. Tracks dataset lineage, splits, and statistics; enables reproducible training by pinning exact dataset versions to experiments. Integrates with the Task object to automatically associate datasets with experiment runs.
Unique: Implements content-addressable storage with SHA256-based deduplication across datasets, automatically tracking dataset lineage and associating versions with experiments via the Task context, supporting multi-cloud backends (S3, GCS, Azure) with unified API
vs alternatives: Provides tighter integration with experiment tracking than DVC (which is primarily a Git-based versioning tool) and lower operational overhead than Pachyderm (which requires Kubernetes), though lacks DVC's Git-native workflow
ClearML scores higher at 61/100 vs LangSmith at 60/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Automatically captures Git repository state (commit hash, branch, uncommitted changes) when a task is initialized, enabling reproducible training by pinning exact code versions. Supports cloning code from Git repositories on remote agents, with automatic dependency installation from requirements.txt or setup.py. Integrates with GitHub, GitLab, and Bitbucket.
Unique: Automatically captures Git repository state (commit hash, branch, uncommitted changes) and enables remote code cloning with automatic dependency installation, linking code versions to experiment runs for reproducibility
vs alternatives: More integrated with experiment tracking than standalone Git tools, but less flexible than custom CI/CD pipelines for complex dependency management
Provides a flexible API for logging scalar metrics (loss, accuracy, F1 score) and custom scalars with support for multiple series per metric, hierarchical metric organization, and real-time streaming to the server. Metrics are buffered locally and sent in batches to reduce network overhead. Supports custom aggregation functions for combining metrics across distributed training ranks.
Unique: Provides flexible metric logging with hierarchical organization, real-time streaming with local buffering, and custom aggregation functions for distributed training, integrated with the Task context
vs alternatives: More flexible than framework-specific logging (PyTorch TensorBoard), but less standardized than OpenTelemetry for observability
Captures training configurations (hyperparameters, model architecture, data paths) as structured metadata linked to experiments. Supports YAML/JSON configuration files, command-line argument parsing, and programmatic parameter setting via the Task API. Enables parameter overrides at execution time without modifying code, with automatic diff tracking between experiment configurations.
Unique: Captures training configurations as structured metadata with support for YAML/JSON files, command-line arguments, and programmatic setting, enabling parameter overrides and automatic diff tracking between experiments
vs alternatives: More integrated with experiment tracking than standalone configuration management tools (Hydra), though Hydra offers more advanced features like composition and interpolation
Enables querying experiments via flexible filtering on tags, hyperparameters, metrics, date range, and custom metadata. Supports full-text search on experiment names and descriptions. Results can be sorted by metric values (e.g., best validation accuracy) and aggregated (e.g., average metric across runs). Filtering is performed server-side for scalability. Saved filters can be bookmarked for repeated use.
Unique: Provides server-side filtering and full-text search on experiment metadata with sortable results, enabling efficient experiment discovery without client-side filtering or manual browsing
vs alternatives: More integrated than generic search tools; comparable to Weights & Biases experiment search but self-hosted and open-source
Distributes training tasks across a pool of worker machines (agents) using a queue-based dispatch system. Tasks are enqueued with resource requirements (GPU count, memory, CPU cores); agents poll queues and execute tasks in isolated environments with automatic dependency resolution and artifact staging. Supports dynamic resource allocation, priority queuing, and task preemption.
Unique: Implements a lightweight agent-based queue system where workers poll for tasks with declarative resource requirements (GPU count, memory), automatically staging dependencies and artifacts without requiring shared filesystems, supporting dynamic queue prioritization
vs alternatives: Simpler to deploy than Kubernetes-based solutions (Ray, Kubeflow) for small-to-medium clusters, but lacks the auto-scaling and fault-tolerance guarantees of cloud-native orchestrators
Defines machine learning workflows as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) where nodes represent tasks (training, evaluation, preprocessing) and edges represent data/artifact dependencies. Pipelines are defined via Python API or YAML, executed sequentially or in parallel based on dependency graph, with automatic artifact passing between stages and centralized monitoring of pipeline runs.
Unique: Implements DAG-based pipeline orchestration where task dependencies are automatically resolved and artifacts are passed between stages via the Task context, with centralized monitoring and support for both Python API and YAML definitions
vs alternatives: More lightweight than Airflow or Prefect for ML-specific workflows, but lacks their mature scheduling, retry logic, and ecosystem of integrations
+6 more capabilities