It started with a simple experiment. I took a group of models, including GLM-5.2, Kimi K2.7 and others, and ran them on the same evaluations. Then I measured what would happen if, for each problem, you somehow knew in advance which models would be useful and how their outputs should be combined.
That hypothetical system performed substantially better than any individual model in the pool. Of course, it is not something you can actually deploy because it relies on knowing which decisions were good after seeing the result. Echo is my attempt to recover some of that advantage without having that information in advance.
For each request, Echo decides how much computation to allocate, which models should participate, and how their work should be combined. Some prompts may only need a relatively small amount of inference, while others benefit from multiple models working on different parts of the problem.
One thing that surprised me while building it was how complementary the models are. A model that is clearly weaker overall can still be extremely useful on particular problems or as part of a combination.
On my first evaluation mix, Echo consistently performed better than the best individual model in its pool. It also reached roughly the same aggregate result as Fable, which I used as one of the stronger comparison systems, at around one third of the inference cost.
There are still some cases where Echo makes the wrong allocation or combination decision. I’m currently spending a lot of time understanding those failures, as well as testing whether the same approach holds up on coding and agentic tasks where measuring the quality of each decision becomes much harder.
I built a chat interface (echo.tracerml.ai) and an OpenAI-compatible API (https://echo.tracerml.ai/docs/api) so the system can be tested outside the evaluation setup.
Here is a short/high level video on how it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJFJSvOdXhg
I wrote up the evaluation methodology, individual model results, costs and current limitations here: https://echo.tracerml.ai/eval
I would love for you to try it! Especially if you hit any weird failure cases or places where the allocation looks unintuitive.
Anyhow, this kinda reminds me of that quote about architecture: "We replaced our monolith with micro services so that every outage could be more like a murder mystery."
It currently exposes 907 stored rows across seven benchmark families, with prompts, outputs, grades, and cost records. More benchmarks are coming soon.
Echo does not disclose its per-request routing decision because that policy is the product. We can, however, publish some of the eligible open-weight model pool, version dates, aggregate allocation mix, and evaluation settings without exposing the request-level recipe.
New video is also being made.
The benchmarks are here → https://echo.tracerml.ai/eval/
They are not good benchmarks but at least they exist.
In my project, I wasted a huge amount of time trying to improve GPQA Diamond results above ~93% range. I realized my mistake when Fable dropped and made no improvement on this benchmark vs. Opus.
I just wish this were solving an actual problem rather than being a fairly transparent attempt to say something approximating, "Hey VCs, OpenRouter just became a unicorn but I can basically vibe code it"
Calling it "Fable-level" feels intellectually lazy / dishonest, but then again, what do you expect when there's so much money on the table.
"microservices turn function calls into distributed computing problems"
seem very confusing to grug
Eval tests while giving general indicators might not be similar for each use case.
https://www.ycombinator.com/companies?query=tracerml
I don't see it?
Echo also starts users with free credit and does not require a credit card to try it. The current signup flow did not make that clear enough, so we are fixing that presentation too.
Thanks for calling both out.
I have often wondered how tools like GHCP choose the best model for the job when set to "auto".
As I understand it, in an MoE model, you essentially have hundreds of smaller sub-models ("experts") that are good at different tasks, and for every generated token, a single "master" model chooses which ones are most relevant to participate, and you only activate them.
Even more confusingly, there are older pre-LLM MoE systems which ensemble and pool the predictions from multiple sub-components. For example in a random forest you could take the majority vote of the decision trees or the average of their numerical predictions.
After that, we developed neural net architectures for predicting a single thing like whether the user will click on your ad. An MMoE is in the same family.
And so now we are at massive MoE networks for LLMs which have similarities with MMoE in that the “decision” is about the very next token to predict.
Have there been experiments with doing it per task? Like, "oh this is python project, use this model" "oh this is about writing fantasy, use this"?
So “1/3 the cost” really depends.
I go to the website…and it’s a sign up. I expected a repo. Otherwise how do I use it? As a SaaS? Yeah right.
Oh well I guess at least the benchmarks are good…I find the benchmarks and many are either not present or are not what the title claims.
My main question is how this has so many updoots from HN, probably the passerby not looking closer for sure.
I mean no offense and I really do wish you best on this, but it seems like what we used to call back in the day, vaporware.
But we get ~$2500/mo worth of Fable credits for $200/mo on Anthropic pan? I'm still confused why people (who don't have to use API billing) are chasing open weight models based on cost.
When they are successful at making those illegal/inaccessible, both Anthropic and ChatGPT are going to rip the band-aid off and inference will only be sold to those that can afford it.
The good ole American way.
This would be like trying to outlaw Linux or peer-to-peer file sharing. It's technically possible to write and pass a law, but it's basically impossible to enforce it.
The $200 odd plans are already out of reach of many, many people.
The attrition of customers if they were to get rid of these subscriptions plans would be untenable.
The $200 plans are priced so that the power-users use them and then advocate about how great the product is. If you're buying a $200 plan, you're not doing it because of the price point but rather because of the amount of work it is doing for you.
https://artificialanalysis.ai/agents/coding-agents#artificia...
While an LLM isn’t what you’d traditionally consider a weak learner, the theorems on learning systems clearly point to them being so in this context. The feigned surprise at combining them to yield better results seems disingenuous.
Even so, the work to predict which models are best suited for which task, how to delegate, and how to combine their outputs is interesting, especially if you’re placing a cost minimization objective on it. That said, this isn’t too far off from what many AI labs are already doing.
It's the natural move that happened after people realized you couldn't throw away half a century of AI research.
Most of these focus on costs. But it is simply the case that the one-shot output did not scale for harder problems on workflows.