Every prompt change
deserves proof

Run prompt-model combinations against real datasets, score with 60+ evaluation metrics, and rank results with weighted scoring. Deploy the config that actually wins - not the one that looked good on three examples.

Experiment: SDR Opener Comparison Completed
# Configuration Accuracy weight: 8 Fluency weight: 6 Coherence weight: 5 Latency weight: 3 Cost weight: 4 Weighted Score
Claude 3.5 Sonnet WINNER
temp: 0.7 · top_p: 0.95 · opener_v3
92.4% 89.1% 91.7% 1.8s $0.0038 8.74
2 GPT-4o temp: 0.7 · top_p: 0.95 · opener_v3 88.6% 91.3% 87.2% 0.9s $0.0052 8.31
3 Gemini 1.5 Pro temp: 0.7 · top_p: 0.95 · opener_v3 85.2% 86.7% 84.9% 1.2s $0.0019 7.68
4 GPT-4o-mini temp: 0.5 · top_p: 0.9 · opener_v2 71.8% 83.4% 69.1% 0.4s $0.0004 6.12
5 Claude 3.5 Haiku temp: 0.7 · top_p: 0.95 · opener_v3 79.3% 85.8% 80.4% 0.6s $0.0008 7.24
Dataset: SDR Openers v2.4 · 1,247 rows Evaluators: 5 metrics
Completed in 4m 32s Total cost: $1.47
Core Features

Not just comparison -
ranked, weighted decisions

Experiment Setup
ready to run
DATASET customer-support-v2.4 1,247 rows · 6 columns Pinned: Mar 8, 2026 · 📌 immutable PROMPT TEMPLATE opener_v3 "You are a customer support agent handling {{topic}}..." CONFIGURATIONS TO COMPARE Claude Sonnet temp: 0.7 · top_p: 0.95 1,247 rows queued GPT-4o temp: 0.7 · top_p: 0.95 1,247 rows queued Gemini Pro temp: 0.7 · top_p: 0.95 1,247 rows queued DATASET PREVIEW # Input Expected Output 1 "I need a refund for order #8472" "I'll process your refund for..." 2 "What's your return policy?" "Our return policy covers..." 3 "My package never arrived" "Let me track your order..." ... 1,244 more rows 3 configs × 1,247 rows = 3,741 evaluations
Evaluation Framework
60+ metrics
EVALUATION METRICS Quality • Accuracy • Fluency • Coherence • Relevance +8 more Safety • Hallucination • Toxicity • PII Detection • Jailbreak +6 more RAG • Context Adherence • Chunk Relevance • Faithfulness • Completeness +5 more LLM-as-Judge • Custom rubrics • Pairwise comparison any model as evaluator Custom Metrics def score_brand_tone(output, expected): return llm.judge(output, rubric="brand_voice") SAMPLE EVALUATION - ROW #1 Accuracy 92.4% Fluency 89.1% Coherence 91.7% Hallucination 1.8% Brand Tone 84.2% 5 metrics active · LLM judge: claude-sonnet · 1,247 rows scored
Weighted Ranking
winner found
METRIC WEIGHTS (0–10) Accuracy 8 Fluency 6 Coherence 5 Cost 4 Latency 3 RANKED RESULTS 🏆 Claude 3.5 Sonnet Acc: 92.4% · Flu: 89.1% · Coh: 91.7% · 1.8s · $0.0038 8.74 2 GPT-4o 88.6% · 91.3% · 87.2% · 0.9s · $0.0052 8.31 3 Gemini Pro 85.2% · 86.7% · 84.9% · 1.2s · $0.0019 7.68 4 Claude Haiku 79.3% · 85.8% · 80.4% · 0.6s · $0.0008 7.24 Weighted by: Accuracy(8) + Fluency(6) + Coherence(5) + Cost(4) + Latency(3)
Multi-modal Experiments
4 model types
SUPPORTED MODEL TYPES 💬 LLM / Chat GPT-4o, Claude, Gemini, Llama Evaluators: accuracy, fluency, safety 60+ metrics 🔊 Text-to-Speech ElevenLabs, OpenAI TTS, Azure Evaluators: naturalness, prosody 8 metrics 🎙 Speech-to-Text Whisper, Deepgram, AssemblyAI Evaluators: WER, accuracy, speed 6 metrics 🎨 Image Generation DALL-E, Midjourney, Stable Diff Evaluators: fidelity, aesthetics 5 metrics EXAMPLE: VOICE AGENT EXPERIMENT 🎙 STT Whisper v3 💬 LLM Claude Sonnet 🔊 TTS ElevenLabs End-to-end score: WER 3.2% Accuracy 94.2% Naturalness 91% 2.1s Same workflow · same scoring framework · any modality

Stop testing prompts on cherry-picked examples. Run experiments against versioned datasets with hundreds of real inputs and expected outputs. Every experiment is reproducible - same dataset version, same prompt template, same model config.

Run your first experiment

Score every experiment run on accuracy, fluency, coherence, factual correctness, context adherence, prompt perplexity, and more. Use built-in templates, LLM-as-a-judge evaluators, or define custom metrics that match your business logic.

Explore evaluation metrics

Rank prompt-model combinations across evaluation scores, response time, token usage, and cost - all in one view. Assign custom weights (0–10) to each metric so the ranking reflects what matters to your use case, not just a single number.

See how ranking works

Run experiments across LLMs, text-to-speech, speech-to-text, image generation, and custom models. Same structured workflow, same evaluation framework - whether you're testing a chatbot, a voice agent, or an image pipeline.

See supported model types
Use Cases

Every decision backed
by your data

2nd GPT-4o 88.6% 0.9s · $0.05 🏆 Claude 92.4% 1.8s · $0.04 WINNER 3rd Gemini 85.2% 1.2s · $0.02 ranked on your data, not benchmarks

Find the best model for your task

Run the same prompt template across GPT-4o, Claude, Gemini, Llama, and more. Compare accuracy, latency, and cost in one ranked view - pick the winner backed by data, not a blog post.

GPT-4oClaudeGemini
Row Prompt v2 (base) Prompt v3 (new) #1 72% 94% ↑ #2 88% 91% ↑ #3 85% 78% ↓ #4 65% 89% ↑ 3 improved · 1 regressed · net +8.3%

A/B test prompt variations

Create a base column with your current prompt output, then run new prompt variants against the same dataset. See exactly which rows improved, which regressed, and by how much.

DatasetsEvaluate
Accuracy Cost per query → Mini Haiku GPT-4o Claude ★ Gemini pareto frontier

Optimize cost vs quality tradeoff

Weight cost high and find the cheapest model that still passes your quality bar. Weight accuracy high and find the best performer regardless of cost. The ranking adjusts to your priorities.

CostLatencyAccuracy
PR #231 prompt edit v3 → v4 Eval Gate 94.2% threshold: 85% ✓ PASS ✓ Merge auto-approved ✗ PR #229 blocked (71%)

Regression-test every PR

Run experiments in CI/CD on every code change. If a prompt edit drops accuracy below your threshold, the PR is blocked. No more shipping regressions you catch after users complain.

GitHub ActionsCI/CD
🎙 STT Whisper WER: 3.2% vs Deepgram 🔊 TTS ElevenLabs MOS: 4.3 vs Azure TTS 🎨 Image DALL-E 3 FID: 12.3 vs Stable Diff same workflow · same scoring framework

Validate voice and image pipelines

Not just LLMs. Run experiments on text-to-speech, speech-to-text, and image generation models with the same structured workflow and scoring framework.

TTSSTTImage Gen
🆕 GPT-5 just released - benchmark it! Model Your data score Status Claude Sonnet 94.2% current winner GPT-5 96.1% ↑ 🆕 new winner! GPT-4o 88.6% - your data, not generic benchmarks

Benchmark new model releases

GPT-5 just dropped? Run your existing experiment suite against it in minutes. See how it stacks up on your actual data - not generic benchmarks.

BenchmarkCompare
How It Works

From hypothesis to
production in three steps

01

Pick your dataset and configs

Select a versioned dataset, choose the prompt templates and model configurations you want to compare, and attach evaluation metrics - accuracy, fluency, cost, or your own custom scorers.

Configure Experiment
📋 DATASET customer-support-v2.4 1,247 rows · versioned 📌 Pinned snapshot ✓ Reproducible ⚙ CONFIGURATIONS Claude Sonnet · temp 0.7 GPT-4o · temp 0.7 Gemini Pro · temp 0.7 3 configs × 1,247 rows 📊 EVALUATORS ✓ Accuracy (weight: 8) ✓ Fluency (weight: 6) ✓ Coherence (weight: 5) ✓ Cost (weight: 4) + Latency (weight: 3) ▶ Run Experiment 3,741 evaluations · est. 4 min Processing row 967 of 1,247...
02

Run, score, rank

Every prompt-model combination runs against your full dataset. 60+ evaluation metrics score each response automatically. Results are ranked with weighted scoring so you see the winner instantly.

Run, Score & Rank
RANKED RESULTS # Config Accuracy (8) Fluency (6) Coherence (5) Score 🏆 Claude Sonnet 92.4% 89.1% 91.7% 8.74 2 GPT-4o 88.6% 91.3% 87.2% 8.31 3 Gemini Pro 85.2% 86.7% 84.9% 7.68 METRIC COMPARISON Accuracy Fluency Coherence Claude GPT-4o Gemini
03

Ship the winner

Choose the top-ranked configuration and promote it to production. Set up CI/CD gates so future changes are automatically tested against your experiment baseline - regressions get blocked, improvements ship.

Ship the Winner
🏆 WINNER Claude 3.5 Sonnet Weighted Score: 8.74 / 10 Accuracy: 92.4% · Fluency: 89.1% temp: 0.7 · top_p: 0.95 · opener_v3 DEPLOY → Promote to Production One-click deploy with auto-versioning Rollback available instantly CI/CD GATE - FUTURE PROTECTION PR #next prompt change triggers experiment Auto-Experiment Run against v2.4 5 metrics · 1,247 rows Quality Gate ≥ 85% threshold ✓ pass ✓ Merge regressions blocked · improvements ship · no more guessing

Powering teams from
prototype to production

From ambitious startups to global enterprises, teams trust Future AGI to ship AI agents confidently.