Comparison
Optimaq vs. evaluation (Braintrust, Promptfoo, Galileo)
Braintrust and Promptfoo answer "is this answer good?"; Optimaq answers "what do I change to spend less without lowering that quality?". Evaluation measures quality in isolation; Optimaq joins quality and cost into one decision with controlled risk.
What evaluation solves
Braintrust, Promptfoo and Galileo let you define cases, compare prompts and models and get quality scores. They’re the reference for whether an output is good.
Where it falls short
Their focus is quality in isolation; the economic axis (how much each option costs and which to prioritize) isn’t their job, nor is executing the change in production with regression control.
What Optimaq adds
It uses quality signals as input and adds the cost and risk dimension. And it goes further: it certifies quality by its real outcome in your product, not just by whether it "looks" good in an isolated test. Braintrust or Promptfoo remain valid for your evals; Optimaq turns those results into a savings decision.
Looking for an "alternative to Braintrust / Promptfoo"?
If you want another evaluation tool, they cover that ground well. If what you want is to decide which configuration to use to spend less with validated quality, that’s unit economics: Optimaq complements your evaluation, it doesn’t replace it.
FAQ
Does Optimaq replace my eval suite?
No. It uses your quality signals as input and adds cost, risk and certification by real outcome. You keep your evals.
What is its quality measure based on?
On the real outcome over your production traffic — not on whether an answer "looks" good, and not on a generic benchmark.
See it on your own prompts — savings + proof that quality holds.
Try /audit →