| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Paid |
| Capabilities | 10 decomposed | 14 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Evaluates RAG pipeline quality by computing multiple metrics (faithfulness, answer relevance, context relevance, context precision) using LLM-based judges that score retrieved context and generated answers against ground truth. Implements a modular metric architecture where each metric is a callable class that accepts query-context-answer tuples and returns numerical scores, enabling composition of custom evaluation suites without modifying core framework code.
Unique: Implements domain-specific metrics (faithfulness, answer relevance, context precision) designed for RAG evaluation rather than generic NLG metrics; uses LLM-as-judge pattern with configurable judge models, enabling evaluation without human annotation while maintaining interpretability through metric-specific prompting strategies
vs alternatives: More specialized for RAG than generic LLM evaluation frameworks (like DeepEval or LangSmith), with metrics specifically designed to catch retrieval failures and hallucinations in context-grounded generation tasks
Abstracts LLM provider selection through a provider registry pattern, allowing metrics to run against OpenAI, Anthropic, Cohere, Azure, or local Ollama without code changes. Implements a standardized LLM interface that metrics call to score samples, with automatic fallback and retry logic, enabling users to swap providers or run distributed evaluation across multiple LLM backends.
Unique: Implements a provider registry pattern with standardized LLM interface that decouples metrics from specific provider implementations, enabling runtime provider swapping and distributed evaluation across heterogeneous LLM backends without metric code modification
vs alternatives: More flexible provider abstraction than frameworks tied to single providers (like LangChain's evaluation tools which default to OpenAI); enables cost optimization and privacy-first evaluation strategies unavailable in provider-locked alternatives
Processes large evaluation datasets by parallelizing metric computation across multiple samples using Python's multiprocessing or async patterns. Implements batching logic that groups samples for efficient LLM API calls, reducing total API requests and latency compared to sequential evaluation. Supports progress tracking and error handling per batch, enabling evaluation of datasets with thousands of samples without memory exhaustion.
Unique: Implements intelligent batching that groups samples for efficient LLM API calls while maintaining parallelization across batches, reducing total API requests and latency; includes per-batch error handling and progress tracking for transparent evaluation of large datasets
vs alternatives: More efficient than naive sequential evaluation or simple multiprocessing; batching strategy reduces API costs while parallelization maintains throughput, making it practical for production-scale evaluation
Computes metrics that compare generated answers against ground truth labels using string similarity, semantic similarity, or LLM-based comparison. Implements supervised evaluation where metrics score answer quality relative to expected outputs, enabling detection of answer degradation or hallucination. Supports multiple comparison strategies (exact match, fuzzy matching, embedding-based similarity) configurable per metric.
Unique: Implements multiple comparison strategies (exact, fuzzy, semantic, LLM-based) in a unified interface, allowing users to choose trade-offs between speed and accuracy; supports multiple valid answers per query for flexible ground truth specification
vs alternatives: More flexible than single-strategy evaluation; enables cost-conscious teams to use fast string matching for obvious cases while reserving LLM-based comparison for ambiguous answers
Evaluates retrieval quality using unsupervised metrics (context precision, context recall, context relevance) that measure whether retrieved documents are relevant to the query without requiring ground truth labels. Uses LLM-as-judge to score context relevance and implements statistical measures for precision/recall based on query-context similarity. Enables evaluation of retrieval pipelines independently from answer generation.
Unique: Implements unsupervised retrieval metrics that work without ground truth labels, using LLM-as-judge for relevance scoring and statistical measures for precision/recall; enables independent evaluation of retrieval quality separate from answer generation
vs alternatives: Unique advantage over supervised-only frameworks in enabling retrieval evaluation without expensive ground truth labeling; allows teams to optimize retrieval independently from generation quality
Detects hallucinations in generated answers by scoring faithfulness — whether the answer is grounded in retrieved context using LLM-as-judge evaluation. Implements a two-stage scoring process: first extracting factual claims from the answer, then verifying each claim against context. Returns per-claim faithfulness scores enabling identification of specific hallucinated statements rather than binary hallucination detection.
Unique: Implements fine-grained per-claim faithfulness scoring rather than binary hallucination detection, enabling identification of specific hallucinated statements and their severity; uses two-stage LLM-as-judge approach (claim extraction then verification) for interpretable scoring
vs alternatives: More granular than simple hallucination classifiers; per-claim scoring enables debugging and targeted improvement of generation quality, while two-stage approach provides interpretability unavailable in end-to-end hallucination detectors
Enables users to define custom evaluation metrics by extending a base Metric class and implementing a score method that accepts query-context-answer tuples. Implements a metric composition pattern allowing users to combine multiple metrics into evaluation suites, with automatic aggregation and reporting. Supports metric-specific configuration (e.g., LLM model choice, similarity threshold) without modifying core framework code.
Unique: Implements a simple base class extension pattern for custom metrics with automatic integration into evaluation pipelines, enabling users to define domain-specific metrics without understanding internal framework architecture; supports metric-specific configuration through constructor parameters
vs alternatives: Lower barrier to entry than building evaluation frameworks from scratch; provides scaffolding and integration points while remaining flexible enough for novel metric implementations
Provides utilities for loading, storing, and versioning evaluation datasets in standard formats (CSV, JSON, Hugging Face datasets). Implements dataset validation to ensure required columns (query, context, answer) are present and properly formatted. Supports dataset splitting for train/test evaluation and metadata tracking (dataset version, creation date, source) for reproducible evaluation runs.
Unique: Implements dataset abstraction with validation and metadata tracking, enabling reproducible evaluation across team members; supports multiple formats (CSV, JSON, Hugging Face) through unified interface
vs alternatives: Simpler than full data versioning systems (like DVC) while providing sufficient structure for evaluation reproducibility; unified format handling reduces boilerplate compared to format-specific loaders
+2 more capabilities
Automatically loads and parses documents from diverse sources (PDFs, Word docs, HTML, Markdown, code files, databases) into a unified in-memory representation using format-specific loaders and node-based document abstractions. Each document is decomposed into Document objects containing metadata, content, and relationships, enabling downstream processing without format-specific handling in application code.
Unique: Provides a unified loader abstraction (BaseReader interface) that normalizes 100+ data source connectors into a single Document/Node API, eliminating format-specific branching logic in application code. Loaders are composable and chainable, allowing sequential transformations (e.g., load → split → extract metadata → embed).
vs alternatives: Broader out-of-the-box loader coverage than LangChain's document loaders and more structured node-based decomposition than raw text splitting, reducing boilerplate for multi-source RAG pipelines.
Splits documents into semantically coherent chunks using multiple strategies (character-based, token-aware, recursive, semantic) with configurable overlap and chunk size. Preserves document hierarchy and metadata through a node tree structure, enabling retrieval systems to maintain context relationships and enable hierarchical re-ranking or parent-document retrieval patterns.
Unique: Implements a node-tree abstraction that preserves document hierarchy and enables parent-document retrieval patterns. Supports multiple splitting strategies (recursive, semantic, code-aware) with pluggable custom splitters, and automatically propagates metadata through the node tree.
vs alternatives: More sophisticated than LangChain's text splitters because it preserves hierarchical relationships and supports semantic splitting; better for complex document structures than simple character-based splitting.
LlamaIndex scores higher at 40/100 vs ragas at 23/100. ragas leads on ecosystem, while LlamaIndex is stronger on quality. However, ragas offers a free tier which may be better for getting started.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Processes documents containing mixed content (text, images, tables, code) by extracting and understanding each modality separately, then synthesizing information across modalities. Uses vision models for image understanding, specialized parsers for tables and code, and integrates results into a unified document representation for retrieval and generation.
Unique: Integrates vision models, table parsers, and code extractors into a unified multi-modal document processing pipeline that synthesizes information across modalities. Preserves modality-specific structure (table schemas, code formatting) while enabling cross-modal retrieval and generation.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive multi-modal support than text-only RAG; built-in vision integration reduces boilerplate for document understanding compared to manual vision API calls.
Enables streaming of LLM responses token-by-token and real-time retrieval updates, allowing applications to display partial results as they become available. Supports streaming from retrieval (progressive document discovery) and generation (token-by-token output) with backpressure handling and cancellation support for responsive user experiences.
Unique: Provides first-class streaming support for both retrieval and generation with automatic backpressure handling and cancellation. Enables progressive result display without custom async/streaming code in application layer.
vs alternatives: More integrated streaming support than manual LLM API streaming; built-in retrieval streaming and backpressure handling reduce complexity compared to custom streaming implementations.
Tracks API costs for LLM calls, embeddings, and other operations with per-query and per-session cost attribution. Provides cost optimization recommendations (e.g., batch processing, model selection, caching) and enables cost-aware query planning to balance quality and expense. Integrates with multiple LLM providers to normalize cost tracking across models.
Unique: Provides automatic cost tracking across multiple LLM providers with per-query attribution and cost optimization recommendations. Integrates with query execution to enable cost-aware planning without manual cost calculation.
vs alternatives: More integrated cost tracking than manual API billing review; built-in optimization recommendations reduce guesswork for cost reduction.
Enables building custom RAG pipelines by composing modular components (retrievers, synthesizers, agents, tools) through a declarative or programmatic API. Supports complex workflows with branching, loops, and conditional logic, with automatic dependency resolution and execution optimization. Pipelines are reusable, testable, and can be deployed as APIs or batch jobs.
Unique: Provides a flexible pipeline composition API supporting both declarative and programmatic definitions, with automatic dependency resolution and execution optimization. Enables complex workflows with branching and conditional logic without custom orchestration code.
vs alternatives: More flexible pipeline composition than fixed RAG architectures; better workflow support than manual component chaining.
Generates embeddings for documents/nodes using pluggable embedding providers (OpenAI, Hugging Face, local models) and stores them in a unified vector store interface that abstracts over multiple backends (Pinecone, Weaviate, Milvus, FAISS, Chroma, etc.). The abstraction layer enables switching vector stores without changing application code, and handles batching, retry logic, and metadata indexing.
Unique: Provides a unified VectorStore interface that abstracts 10+ vector database backends, enabling zero-code switching between providers. Handles embedding batching, retry logic, and metadata propagation automatically. Supports both cloud and local embedding models through a pluggable EmbedModel interface.
vs alternatives: Broader vector store coverage and more seamless provider switching than LangChain's vectorstore integrations; better abstraction consistency across backends than using raw vector store SDKs directly.
Retrieves semantically similar documents from vector stores using embedding-based similarity search, with optional re-ranking, filtering, and fusion strategies (hybrid search combining dense and sparse retrieval). Supports multiple retrieval modes (similarity, MMR, fusion) and enables custom retrieval logic through a pluggable Retriever interface that can combine multiple strategies.
Unique: Implements a pluggable Retriever abstraction supporting multiple retrieval strategies (similarity, MMR, fusion, custom) that can be composed and chained. Built-in support for re-ranking via LLM or cross-encoder, and hybrid search combining dense and sparse retrieval without custom integration code.
vs alternatives: More flexible retrieval composition than LangChain's retrievers; built-in re-ranking and fusion strategies reduce boilerplate for advanced retrieval pipelines.
+6 more capabilities