Docs vs Braintrust

coding.sh vs Braintrust

Braintrust is a hosted eval platform; coding.sh runs evals locally with paired statistics. A feature table, and where each one is the better choice.

Braintrust is a hosted platform for evals and observability of AI products, with experiments, datasets, a prompt playground and online scoring. Its SDKs, CLI and the autoevals library are open source; the platform is not. coding.sh is an MIT-licensed CLI and local viewer that records AI agents on your machine and runs evals there, with coding agents such as Claude Code and Codex captured through their hooks.

Checked against Braintrust's docs on 7 November 2026. Sources are at the end of the page. If something here is out of date, open an issue.

At a glance

coding.shBraintrust
LicenseMIT, all of itSDKs, CLI and autoevals open source; the platform is closed
Hosted cloudNoYes, with a free Starter plan
Self-hostYes: a laptop, or one coding.sh serve containerA self-hosted data plane (API, Postgres, Redis, object storage, Brainstore)
Coding agent captureHooks for Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and more (list)bt CLI for Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, OpenCode and more
Import past sessionsYes, coding.sh ingest --backfillYes, bt trace import
OpenTelemetry ingestYes, a local OTLP/HTTP receiverYes
SDK languagesTypeScript and PythonSix
Datasets, experiments, LLM judgesYesYes
Compare two experimentsPaired bootstrap interval and a ship-or-hold gateSide-by-side diffs and score deltas
Replay a coding session step by step, with filesYes, coding.sh replayNo
Online scoring of live trafficNoYes
Human review queuesNoYes
Prompt management and playgroundNoYes
PR comments with eval resultsNo (exit code only)Yes, a GitHub Action
SSO and audit logsNoEnterprise
MCP serverYes, localYes, hosted

Where Braintrust is better

  • The experiment UI. A polished hosted interface to browse experiments, diff outputs and score them, with a playground to try prompts and models.
  • Production. Online scoring of live traffic, review queues for people, and LLM-based clustering of traces into topics.
  • Team reporting for coding agents. A dashboard that breaks coding-agent cost down by user, model, tool and branch across a team.
  • CI feedback. A GitHub Action posts score changes as a pull request comment.
  • Languages. SDKs in six languages.

If you want a managed eval platform with a UI the whole team uses, Braintrust fits better than coding.sh.

Where coding.sh is better

  • Open source and local. The whole tool is MIT licensed. Runs and traces stay on your disk, no account is needed, and nothing is sent anywhere unless you add a sink.
  • Statistics on every comparison. coding.sh exp compare pairs two runs case by case and reports a bootstrap interval of the difference. A result inside the noise is inconclusive, not a win, and --gate gives a ship-or-hold exit code.
  • Calibrated judges. An LLM judge counts only after it agrees with human labels on held-out cases; uncalibrated judges are flagged in every report.
  • Coding tasks that replay. An eval task starts from the repository as it was before the agent ran, and its verifier is checked first: doing nothing must fail and the reference must pass.
  • Session replay. coding.sh replay walks a session one step at a time with the files each step touched.

Questions

Is there an open-source Braintrust alternative?

For evals of agents and coding agents, coding.sh is one: MIT licensed and local. It has no playground, prompt management, review queues or hosted UI.

How does coding.sh decide that a change helped?

It runs both versions on the same cases, pairs the results by case, and computes a bootstrap interval of the difference. When the interval's low end is above zero the change is better, when its high end is below zero it is worse, and otherwise it is inconclusive. See Evals.

Can both trace Claude Code?

Yes. Braintrust's bt CLI enables tracing for Claude Code and imports past sessions. coding.sh installs hooks with coding.sh init and imports past sessions with coding.sh ingest --backfill.

Sources