I built a simple (free) eval tool for my own uses (Github Gists + Model Outputs) after not being able to find a suitable one in the market.
The market's being split into
1. Longitudinal LLM observability tooling
Most eval startups have gone down the route of something more like being an observability platform for LLM inference. They want to be in your stack and running the inference to collect data on performance of it.
They collect things like how often a model returns JSON that's out of spec or returns values that aren't expected as well as general timing and cost info.
2. Safety Limiting / Pentesting
Say you're doing something in the medical field or that's sensitive in some way and you want to figure out what model has the best outputs for your task that won't fly off the guardrails.
3. Simple cost + performance + quality swapping
This is what my tool does, basically lets you test if you _really_ need to be running that frontier model in a loop across a million records or if you'd be better with an older model or something else.
Cool project! I haven't seen that OpenRouter workflow yet (sign into OpenRouter and it creates an API key that your app can use), that looks like an interesting pattern to investigate.
My company recently built a tool that is closer to your first category, but it's an API so it doesn't have the security (supply chain) concern of being embedded in your application.
It's built to help people manage the risk of LLMs changing underneath them and drifting from their designed behavior. Traditional deterministic testing probably won't be sufficient for apps that provide nondeterministic output, like a chatbot backed by an LLM.
The point in the linked article about the challenge of selling developer tools to developers is a good one. I think the first reaction to coding agents is "let's build everything ourselves!" but the long tail of maintenance is still there and the pendulum will probably swing back to "let's stick to our knitting."
"eval startups have a hard time finding customers, because clients have to be technical developers who want to build with APIs, but also not technical enough to run their own evals"
To add to this, they have to be developers who aren't already using a fullstack observability solution, since it's fairly straight forward to add the eval startup featureset to an existing observability solution, and easier (plus cost effective) to just keep it all in one place.
Interesting. As someone who has written a fair amount of evals to test and benchmark my skills and tools, I am curious what observability solutions you might be referring to? /me heads off to ddg…
I have written a couple of eval harnesses to see how well LLMs drive software I have written. Basically I have data analysis software that I need LLMs to write code for. The code is complex, and I want to shape my APIs such that LLMs do a better job of quickly getting to the right answer. So I test different prompting and api surfaces, it's really easy to make quick gains this way and save your users from bugs. In this paradigm, I'm explicitly not testing different models, and I'm very interested to see how lesser models do with my software. Also for this type of testing, using the open weight models makes it faster, cheaper, and more reliable to test vs frontier models because I can trust that kimi-2.5-a-bunch-of-specs is going to behave more consistently than whatever tweaks Claude is making to Sonnet this week. API and prompting improvements seem to carry across the different models for gross improvements.
I haven't looked that hard, but I can't find articles about this type of eval testing, curious to hear if others have approached writing APIs in this way.
"Safety evals are an exception
I believe eval startups can work when they're targeting safety benchmarks specifically. Researchers who want to work on safety evals tend to be ideologically opposed to working on capabilities, which means they don't migrate to post-training or applications due to monetary incentives."
This is quite interesting. Seems more relevant in 2026.
The way eval startup is defined here is very specific and doesn't cover successful eval farmwork/SaaS vendors like Arize, Promptfoo, deepeval, etc
The author does have a point around generic benchmarks not being super valuable for companies. But evals should be seen as verifying design/behaviour constraints and can greatly aid product building, golden dataset creations and good software practices.
It's just that the aim should be "how to generate your own good evals, even if it's hard" as not so much "here's some generic evals about models".
(Author) It's short for "evaluation", a test for an AI model. Specifically, an AI evaluation comprises (1) a dataset of prompts (as questions / tasks / queries), (2) some way to score model performance on each prompt, like a set of correct answers or a grading rubric that you can use with an LLM autograder, and (3) a metric, such as accuracy¹. (If you're already familiar with the term "benchmark", it's the same thing; for some reason the former has become the term of art in the past few years).
For example, a simple eval is a dataset of multiple-choice questions, which each have one correct answer, and scored by accuracy. An example of this kind of eval is the Massive Multitask Language Understanding benchmark (2020) (https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.03300).
A more complex eval is FrontierCode (2026). Questions in FrontierCode represent coding tasks needed for real-world repos and are evaluated against rubrics scoring for correctness, code quality, cleanliness, and other factors. https://cognition.com/blog/frontier-code.
¹Note that this is a slightly different definition we used in [0], which used a definition of a fixed input-output correspondence pairs combined with a metric. What's different from 2021 is: models are now given more open-ended inputs (prompts like "find the bug" and a codebase rather than a simple question), have freeform generation (rather than choosing a fixed answer), and are graded in a more complex manner (e.g. beyond correctness, one might care for a coding eval also to grade adherence to coding guidelines, test coverage, etc).
[0] Liao, T., Taori, R., Raji, I. D., & Schmidt, L. (2021, January). Are we learning yet? a meta review of evaluation failures across machine learning. In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2). https://thomasliao.com/are_we_learning_yet.pdf
It's an important question! If you are paying a lot of money to use AI models, you care that you are using the best for your task. And it turns out that figuring out which AI models is best for your task is not trivial and requires some expertise.
That was too nice of a reply, I apologize. I just can't understand the thought process and that what exactly are we optimizing for? If you are paying a lot of money to use AI models, you already have so much overhead that precise ranking in an eval is not gonna make much difference between equally "frontier" models. Especially since models are sensitive to the input. So the eval is just gonna evaluate the eval with very high accuracy. It might be equivalent to the illusion of safety thing applied to financial risk.
A key point I want to make is that the notion of "frontier" is somewhat fictive in the sense that a model which dominates all others on a given eval is not guaranteed to be number one on another eval, even if both evals are ostensibly for the same task.
For example, the best publicly-available model (i.e. excluding Claude Mythos and Fable) on DeepSWE[0] is gpt-5.5-xhigh at 67%, which is soundly better than claude-opus-4.8-max at 59%. I would say an 8pp gap on a benchmark is quite large. But on FrontierCode[1], claude-opus-4.8-xhigh is the best, at a score of 13.4% compared to gpt-5.5-medium at 6.3%.
That's quite a significant reversal!
Now, one might wish to claim that either DeepSWE or FrontierCode is poorly constructed and that the other is more accurate. But I think you'll find that the degree to which eval-design considerations in this case affect measurement is probably of no less magnitude than user-specific considerations affect measurement in general.
There is a larger question of "do I need a frontier model for this" - knowing the cost/benefit tradeoff using frontier vs. e.g. local models is extremely valuable and takes skill to do!
It's not just for choice of model, you can use it for your prompting as well (basically anything to do with your setup). And yes, running evals is expensive and mostly of use to people with serious spend.
IMHO - In an AI context an "eval" is answering the question - "Is this AI / LLM call helping me or is doing the right thing?"
AI is not deterministic like regular code, so imagine you use it for "search" (RAG) or for summarizing or for classifying emails etc. How do you know it is giving you the right results? In this context, AI evals are an important idea and very often neglected.
You can use an initial "dataset" to evaluate your prompt and AI calls + code (think test cases), this dataset will of-course be curated by humans. But as the software is used, you want to incorporate, real production data as well and run the evaluation pre and post launch. Sounds simple, but can get complicated specially since this area is new and as the post mentioned there are too many players and options out there (since everyone thought this is a money maker).
To complement the excellent answers that I read in this thread: an eval is a test.
What makes it particular for the case of AI is:
- there are many situations where you can’t test using pattern matching
- you don’t only like to test correct answers but voice and tone too (imagine a bank support LLM-based chatbot that answers using slang)
- evals can be used to compare the performance of different implementations; given the costs of LLMs, it’s very important
- running evals is more expensive than running standard tests, because you rely on the LLM calls under test, and many times they use LLMs as a judge. It means that running them in every commit of your CI/CD is very expensive
- Knowing all the possible inputs for the LLM is impossible, so evals can also be run on runtime samples to detect anomalies
Unfortunately, model quality is not the only criterion for users, and often not even the most important one. Adoption is also driven by marketing, UX, integrations, pricing, ecosystem, and a lot of other non-benchmark factors.
Also, model providers are not interested to have their models compared head-to-head under identical conditions. And “Model A is better than Model B” is almost meaningless by itself. Better for what task? With what prompt? What inputs? What budget? What failure tolerance?
It would be nice to have a place where users could run their own benchmarks, define evaluation criteria for their actual use cases, and make those runs verifiable by others.
Exactly this. I find most eval companies get torn in multiple directions and do not end up putting out useful data. Probably genuine value as a B2B/consulting style service but that quickly falls out of being a pure eval company.
It's also that the price-value frontier is different for different use-cases. For many of the things that I was doing, I could do harness improvements to make DS V4 Flash catch up in performance with GPT-5.5 or Claude Sonnet, but that's just because of the use-case. And if I'm being honest, this kind of eval doesn't need someone else. Claude and I can build a framework on a per-task thing.
I don't love the anthropomorphization of "Claude and I can build this". Using language like that shapes your thinking in exactly the direction that the AI companies are intending. "Claude" is not a person, it makes as much sense as saying "my laptop and I can build this".
The problem with eval is the fact that the information is not updating itself fast enough so that you want the latest model performance benchmarks. Bloomberg succeeded because it sells info that is expires in the next hour.
I think there's gonna be (or perhaps already is) a huge demand for evaling individual systems. Many countries are starting to adopt some criteria for LLM usage for public use, and I doubt govs are gonna develop in-house knowhow for this. These will likely form some kinds of "independent auditor" models, as the system provider has too strong conflicts of intetest.
It's probably not gonna be exactly glorious work, but designing expert evals settings and collecting and crunching the data for quality assurance and control is going to be needed.
I can see where Goodhart's Law applies to psychology and economics, pretty much any man-made domain without IDLH (immediate-danger-to-life-and-health) outcomes. But I think it's going to be hard to Goodhart a lot of medical AI safety. Biology doesn't give a shit.
However, identifying the right metrics and having the necessary test sets will, at times, be challenging.
Imo it's very simple - AI is a big function inverter. If you have a better cost function than frontier labs, as in, you are better at judging model output quality, then you can use that cost function to RL the next generation of models.
Therefore your knowledge is better used in training than letting users be slightly better at the token casino. Which is mentioned in this post as well, eval startup people either go to work at frontier labs or finetune startups.
I’m convinced the only way to make a startup work, with a few exceptions, is to give away your product or sell below cost.
For years upon years until you get brought out. Then it’s someone else’s problem. Or you IPO and bring in new management to figure out how to make money.
VCs don’t see 20x exits happening for Eval companies, so they have trouble with the losing money for years step
The current way benchmarks are done and are accepted by the community makes for really uninspired work. Until we're willing to break out of this rigid evaluation format prone to crazy overfitting and gaming, talent will move elsewhere. It is kind of a chicken and egg problem though.
If you look at the history of software engineering, the ones that made the most money were usually not the companies that built the applications themselves, but the ones that built the tools to verify, deploy, and build them, such as CI/CD, static analysis tools, and testing frameworks.
Personally, I agree with the Goodhart problem, but isn't the reason Eval startups fail because they try to sell an 'evaluation service' rather than a 'verification toolchain'? The problem, it seems, is that AI verification toolchains require a model in the end, because they internalize AI and sell it under the name of a 'harness.'
So an AI verification(eval) toolchain would have to be structurally different. Verifying AI code isn't about whether it compiles. AI code can always be made to compile. The issue involves various semantic criticisms, such as overfitting to existing designs and tests. To catch those issues, you ultimately need to build an AI. But building that AI is expensive. So in the end, AI verification companies depend on external model providers for the core components of their verification engine. I think this is a bad business decision
I thought about mentioning Atlassian (Jira) and JetBrains, but come to think of it, they aren't really testing frameworks. They cover the entire development workflow overall. I guess I was thinking too short.
The "shovels for gold miners" analogy is generally a good one. It applies to Nvidia, for example. It doesn't generally apply to developers though. Developer tooling is notoriously difficult to monetize. Developers themselves are a shovel.
Devs are hard to market and sell too I've heard. It's likely because they can build a lot of the stuff out there themselves when pressed. They have the most app exposure so are opinionated. It's why most devs take the open source spoils while everyone else avoids GitHub in general. Although AI has made it easy to setup locally, many still don't see the value of controlling their software or ai agents fully like devs.
Worked or tried to work for a few places that ended eval work in the 2010s for previous-gen systems. Most didn’t pay for it, thanks to all the ones that didn’t I didn’t dare try selling it to the one that would have.
In addition to naming one, I'd also be interesting in whether they actually do rigorous work.
The safety research that tends to get headlines is often extremely misleading, usually with directed prompting, or unreported additions to the system prompt specifying model roleplay behavior.
evals are glorified integration tests, would you invest in an integration test startup? absolutely not. I don't get why we are making all of this fuzz around evals
Because what people actually want is a simple harness to test their use cases against all the frontier models and see which is the cheapest/best for the job.
It's simple to say but hard to master doing well, and the important thing is that no matter what tool you have the evals don't write themselves.
Except regex, no matter how technologically advanced your company, somewhere someone is slapping regex on something that has no business being regexed.
I found this pretty hard to read as the author has a very specific understanding of what an eval startup means but it is only implied rather than explicitly described. I would have thought that they were referring to the companies that provide a technology platform to enable you to do evals in an AI application context for example companies like Comet/Opik and Braintrust.
But it sounds like the author does not mean those companies at all since those are actually important in enabling the very Venn diagram he/she describes.
Based on what I assume the author's referring to they are referring to something more like a public benchmark report provider... I would say but yes that's a relatively small total addressable Market space no matter how you look at it
Funnily enough, this made immediate sense to me, and I think it derives from being a situation where you need high reliability from a process, eg: I need a bot which has a 99.99% guarantee to not go out of bounds or say something incorrect.
I built a simple (free) eval tool for my own uses (Github Gists + Model Outputs) after not being able to find a suitable one in the market.
The market's being split into
1. Longitudinal LLM observability tooling
Most eval startups have gone down the route of something more like being an observability platform for LLM inference. They want to be in your stack and running the inference to collect data on performance of it.
They collect things like how often a model returns JSON that's out of spec or returns values that aren't expected as well as general timing and cost info.
2. Safety Limiting / Pentesting
Say you're doing something in the medical field or that's sensitive in some way and you want to figure out what model has the best outputs for your task that won't fly off the guardrails.
3. Simple cost + performance + quality swapping
This is what my tool does, basically lets you test if you _really_ need to be running that frontier model in a loop across a million records or if you'd be better with an older model or something else.
https://evvl.ai/
Example eval: https://giyd8stidy.evvl.io
Cool project! I haven't seen that OpenRouter workflow yet (sign into OpenRouter and it creates an API key that your app can use), that looks like an interesting pattern to investigate.
My company recently built a tool that is closer to your first category, but it's an API so it doesn't have the security (supply chain) concern of being embedded in your application.
https://endpointevaluator.com
It's built to help people manage the risk of LLMs changing underneath them and drifting from their designed behavior. Traditional deterministic testing probably won't be sufficient for apps that provide nondeterministic output, like a chatbot backed by an LLM.
The point in the linked article about the challenge of selling developer tools to developers is a good one. I think the first reaction to coding agents is "let's build everything ourselves!" but the long tail of maintenance is still there and the pendulum will probably swing back to "let's stick to our knitting."
[flagged]
"eval startups have a hard time finding customers, because clients have to be technical developers who want to build with APIs, but also not technical enough to run their own evals"
To add to this, they have to be developers who aren't already using a fullstack observability solution, since it's fairly straight forward to add the eval startup featureset to an existing observability solution, and easier (plus cost effective) to just keep it all in one place.
Interesting. As someone who has written a fair amount of evals to test and benchmark my skills and tools, I am curious what observability solutions you might be referring to? /me heads off to ddg…
I have written a couple of eval harnesses to see how well LLMs drive software I have written. Basically I have data analysis software that I need LLMs to write code for. The code is complex, and I want to shape my APIs such that LLMs do a better job of quickly getting to the right answer. So I test different prompting and api surfaces, it's really easy to make quick gains this way and save your users from bugs. In this paradigm, I'm explicitly not testing different models, and I'm very interested to see how lesser models do with my software. Also for this type of testing, using the open weight models makes it faster, cheaper, and more reliable to test vs frontier models because I can trust that kimi-2.5-a-bunch-of-specs is going to behave more consistently than whatever tweaks Claude is making to Sonnet this week. API and prompting improvements seem to carry across the different models for gross improvements.
I haven't looked that hard, but I can't find articles about this type of eval testing, curious to hear if others have approached writing APIs in this way.
"Safety evals are an exception I believe eval startups can work when they're targeting safety benchmarks specifically. Researchers who want to work on safety evals tend to be ideologically opposed to working on capabilities, which means they don't migrate to post-training or applications due to monetary incentives."
This is quite interesting. Seems more relevant in 2026.
The way eval startup is defined here is very specific and doesn't cover successful eval farmwork/SaaS vendors like Arize, Promptfoo, deepeval, etc
The author does have a point around generic benchmarks not being super valuable for companies. But evals should be seen as verifying design/behaviour constraints and can greatly aid product building, golden dataset creations and good software practices.
It's just that the aim should be "how to generate your own good evals, even if it's hard" as not so much "here's some generic evals about models".
What's an eval?
(Author) It's short for "evaluation", a test for an AI model. Specifically, an AI evaluation comprises (1) a dataset of prompts (as questions / tasks / queries), (2) some way to score model performance on each prompt, like a set of correct answers or a grading rubric that you can use with an LLM autograder, and (3) a metric, such as accuracy¹. (If you're already familiar with the term "benchmark", it's the same thing; for some reason the former has become the term of art in the past few years).
For example, a simple eval is a dataset of multiple-choice questions, which each have one correct answer, and scored by accuracy. An example of this kind of eval is the Massive Multitask Language Understanding benchmark (2020) (https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.03300).
A more complex eval is FrontierCode (2026). Questions in FrontierCode represent coding tasks needed for real-world repos and are evaluated against rubrics scoring for correctness, code quality, cleanliness, and other factors. https://cognition.com/blog/frontier-code.
¹Note that this is a slightly different definition we used in [0], which used a definition of a fixed input-output correspondence pairs combined with a metric. What's different from 2021 is: models are now given more open-ended inputs (prompts like "find the bug" and a codebase rather than a simple question), have freeform generation (rather than choosing a fixed answer), and are graded in a more complex manner (e.g. beyond correctness, one might care for a coding eval also to grade adherence to coding guidelines, test coverage, etc).
[0] Liao, T., Taori, R., Raji, I. D., & Schmidt, L. (2021, January). Are we learning yet? a meta review of evaluation failures across machine learning. In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2). https://thomasliao.com/are_we_learning_yet.pdf
Would've started the article out alluding to this, or added a tooltip or something to this effect
That sounds a bit weak as a startup idea. Hard to productize, hard to scale, etc. It sounds more like consulting.
Yah - it's simultaneously the hardest and most vital part of machine learning work, and completely non-monetizable.
So basically an "eval startup" is somewhere between a middleman or a Consumer Reports?
Evaluations of different implementations of a tech. Kind of like a meta service layer on top of an industry, such as "Which frontier model is best?"
I do agree that the author does not do a good job of introducing the term.
"Which frontier model is best?"
What kind of stupid business is this. Though nothing can beat SEO in that spirit.
It's an important question! If you are paying a lot of money to use AI models, you care that you are using the best for your task. And it turns out that figuring out which AI models is best for your task is not trivial and requires some expertise.
That was too nice of a reply, I apologize. I just can't understand the thought process and that what exactly are we optimizing for? If you are paying a lot of money to use AI models, you already have so much overhead that precise ranking in an eval is not gonna make much difference between equally "frontier" models. Especially since models are sensitive to the input. So the eval is just gonna evaluate the eval with very high accuracy. It might be equivalent to the illusion of safety thing applied to financial risk.
>equally "frontier" models
A key point I want to make is that the notion of "frontier" is somewhat fictive in the sense that a model which dominates all others on a given eval is not guaranteed to be number one on another eval, even if both evals are ostensibly for the same task.
For example, the best publicly-available model (i.e. excluding Claude Mythos and Fable) on DeepSWE[0] is gpt-5.5-xhigh at 67%, which is soundly better than claude-opus-4.8-max at 59%. I would say an 8pp gap on a benchmark is quite large. But on FrontierCode[1], claude-opus-4.8-xhigh is the best, at a score of 13.4% compared to gpt-5.5-medium at 6.3%.
That's quite a significant reversal!
Now, one might wish to claim that either DeepSWE or FrontierCode is poorly constructed and that the other is more accurate. But I think you'll find that the degree to which eval-design considerations in this case affect measurement is probably of no less magnitude than user-specific considerations affect measurement in general.
[0] https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/ [1] https://cognition.com/blog/frontier-code
It's not just figuring out if a model is good at things, but is it good at the things I care about.
Using a targeted eval suite (like a test suite) tells us that.
There is a larger question of "do I need a frontier model for this" - knowing the cost/benefit tradeoff using frontier vs. e.g. local models is extremely valuable and takes skill to do!
It's not just for choice of model, you can use it for your prompting as well (basically anything to do with your setup). And yes, running evals is expensive and mostly of use to people with serious spend.
They all change day to day and are non-deterministic by design. Your settled answer is only good for a moment.
But frontier models are constantly changing.
IMHO - In an AI context an "eval" is answering the question - "Is this AI / LLM call helping me or is doing the right thing?"
AI is not deterministic like regular code, so imagine you use it for "search" (RAG) or for summarizing or for classifying emails etc. How do you know it is giving you the right results? In this context, AI evals are an important idea and very often neglected.
You can use an initial "dataset" to evaluate your prompt and AI calls + code (think test cases), this dataset will of-course be curated by humans. But as the software is used, you want to incorporate, real production data as well and run the evaluation pre and post launch. Sounds simple, but can get complicated specially since this area is new and as the post mentioned there are too many players and options out there (since everyone thought this is a money maker).
To complement the excellent answers that I read in this thread: an eval is a test.
What makes it particular for the case of AI is:
- there are many situations where you can’t test using pattern matching
- you don’t only like to test correct answers but voice and tone too (imagine a bank support LLM-based chatbot that answers using slang)
- evals can be used to compare the performance of different implementations; given the costs of LLMs, it’s very important
- running evals is more expensive than running standard tests, because you rely on the LLM calls under test, and many times they use LLMs as a judge. It means that running them in every commit of your CI/CD is very expensive
- Knowing all the possible inputs for the LLM is impossible, so evals can also be run on runtime samples to detect anomalies
Unfortunately, model quality is not the only criterion for users, and often not even the most important one. Adoption is also driven by marketing, UX, integrations, pricing, ecosystem, and a lot of other non-benchmark factors.
Also, model providers are not interested to have their models compared head-to-head under identical conditions. And “Model A is better than Model B” is almost meaningless by itself. Better for what task? With what prompt? What inputs? What budget? What failure tolerance?
It would be nice to have a place where users could run their own benchmarks, define evaluation criteria for their actual use cases, and make those runs verifiable by others.
Maybe it's not that valuable? No snark, but how much confidence do these evals provide?
Exactly this. I find most eval companies get torn in multiple directions and do not end up putting out useful data. Probably genuine value as a B2B/consulting style service but that quickly falls out of being a pure eval company.
It's also that the price-value frontier is different for different use-cases. For many of the things that I was doing, I could do harness improvements to make DS V4 Flash catch up in performance with GPT-5.5 or Claude Sonnet, but that's just because of the use-case. And if I'm being honest, this kind of eval doesn't need someone else. Claude and I can build a framework on a per-task thing.
I don't love the anthropomorphization of "Claude and I can build this". Using language like that shapes your thinking in exactly the direction that the AI companies are intending. "Claude" is not a person, it makes as much sense as saying "my laptop and I can build this".
The problem with eval is the fact that the information is not updating itself fast enough so that you want the latest model performance benchmarks. Bloomberg succeeded because it sells info that is expires in the next hour.
I think there's gonna be (or perhaps already is) a huge demand for evaling individual systems. Many countries are starting to adopt some criteria for LLM usage for public use, and I doubt govs are gonna develop in-house knowhow for this. These will likely form some kinds of "independent auditor" models, as the system provider has too strong conflicts of intetest.
It's probably not gonna be exactly glorious work, but designing expert evals settings and collecting and crunching the data for quality assurance and control is going to be needed.
I can see where Goodhart's Law applies to psychology and economics, pretty much any man-made domain without IDLH (immediate-danger-to-life-and-health) outcomes. But I think it's going to be hard to Goodhart a lot of medical AI safety. Biology doesn't give a shit.
However, identifying the right metrics and having the necessary test sets will, at times, be challenging.
Imo it's very simple - AI is a big function inverter. If you have a better cost function than frontier labs, as in, you are better at judging model output quality, then you can use that cost function to RL the next generation of models.
Therefore your knowledge is better used in training than letting users be slightly better at the token casino. Which is mentioned in this post as well, eval startup people either go to work at frontier labs or finetune startups.
I’m convinced the only way to make a startup work, with a few exceptions, is to give away your product or sell below cost.
For years upon years until you get brought out. Then it’s someone else’s problem. Or you IPO and bring in new management to figure out how to make money.
VCs don’t see 20x exits happening for Eval companies, so they have trouble with the losing money for years step
The current way benchmarks are done and are accepted by the community makes for really uninspired work. Until we're willing to break out of this rigid evaluation format prone to crazy overfitting and gaming, talent will move elsewhere. It is kind of a chicken and egg problem though.
If you look at the history of software engineering, the ones that made the most money were usually not the companies that built the applications themselves, but the ones that built the tools to verify, deploy, and build them, such as CI/CD, static analysis tools, and testing frameworks.
Personally, I agree with the Goodhart problem, but isn't the reason Eval startups fail because they try to sell an 'evaluation service' rather than a 'verification toolchain'? The problem, it seems, is that AI verification toolchains require a model in the end, because they internalize AI and sell it under the name of a 'harness.'
So an AI verification(eval) toolchain would have to be structurally different. Verifying AI code isn't about whether it compiles. AI code can always be made to compile. The issue involves various semantic criticisms, such as overfitting to existing designs and tests. To catch those issues, you ultimately need to build an AI. But building that AI is expensive. So in the end, AI verification companies depend on external model providers for the core components of their verification engine. I think this is a bad business decision
> made the most money
> built the tools to verify, deploy, and build them, such as CI/CD, static analysis tools, and testing frameworks.
Curious. Which company made money with testing frameworks?
I thought about mentioning Atlassian (Jira) and JetBrains, but come to think of it, they aren't really testing frameworks. They cover the entire development workflow overall. I guess I was thinking too short.
The "shovels for gold miners" analogy is generally a good one. It applies to Nvidia, for example. It doesn't generally apply to developers though. Developer tooling is notoriously difficult to monetize. Developers themselves are a shovel.
Devs are hard to market and sell too I've heard. It's likely because they can build a lot of the stuff out there themselves when pressed. They have the most app exposure so are opinionated. It's why most devs take the open source spoils while everyone else avoids GitHub in general. Although AI has made it easy to setup locally, many still don't see the value of controlling their software or ai agents fully like devs.
Worked or tried to work for a few places that ended eval work in the 2010s for previous-gen systems. Most didn’t pay for it, thanks to all the ones that didn’t I didn’t dare try selling it to the one that would have.
> I believe eval startups can work when they're targeting safety benchmarks specifically.
Are there any examples of successful startups doing this?
In addition to naming one, I'd also be interesting in whether they actually do rigorous work.
The safety research that tends to get headlines is often extremely misleading, usually with directed prompting, or unreported additions to the system prompt specifying model roleplay behavior.
evals are glorified integration tests, would you invest in an integration test startup? absolutely not. I don't get why we are making all of this fuzz around evals
Because what people actually want is a simple harness to test their use cases against all the frontier models and see which is the cheapest/best for the job.
It's simple to say but hard to master doing well, and the important thing is that no matter what tool you have the evals don't write themselves.
There are a number of integration test startups. None of them do a great job but they do exist.
Everything eventually fails. Nothing is constant, not even evals.
Except regex, no matter how technologically advanced your company, somewhere someone is slapping regex on something that has no business being regexed.
You're in a business, and you think, to improve things I'm going to slap a regex on this. Now you're in two businesses.
And llms seeing this keep on repeating that mistake, like trying to parse html with regexp.
> Not enough eval customers
Aha.
Because they operate on untrusted input
I found this pretty hard to read as the author has a very specific understanding of what an eval startup means but it is only implied rather than explicitly described. I would have thought that they were referring to the companies that provide a technology platform to enable you to do evals in an AI application context for example companies like Comet/Opik and Braintrust.
But it sounds like the author does not mean those companies at all since those are actually important in enabling the very Venn diagram he/she describes.
Based on what I assume the author's referring to they are referring to something more like a public benchmark report provider... I would say but yes that's a relatively small total addressable Market space no matter how you look at it
Funnily enough, this made immediate sense to me, and I think it derives from being a situation where you need high reliability from a process, eg: I need a bot which has a 99.99% guarantee to not go out of bounds or say something incorrect.
Wtf is an eval startup?
[flagged]
[dead]