RetrievalBench · Validation release

Stop tuning retrieval by vibes.

Know whether your RAG retrieval change actually improved before you ship it.

Compare retrieval configurations head-to-head, see exactly which queries improved or regressed, and understand whether the extra cost and latency are worth it.

Validation release — no payment will be collected today.

RetrievalBench isn't available yet.

I'm currently validating whether this is worth building.

You won't be charged today.

If you'd pay $39 for early access when it launches, let me know below.

Would you pay $39 for RetrievalBench?

Your email will only be used for RetrievalBench validation and launch updates.

The problem

You changed your retrieval pipeline. Now what?

Before

  • 512-token chunks
  • dense retrieval
  • top-k 5

After

  • 800-token chunks
  • hybrid retrieval
  • reranker
  • top-k 10

Is the new version actually better?

  • Which queries improved?
  • Which queries got worse?
  • Is the extra cost and latency worth it?

Compare

Compare baseline vs candidate.

Run the same evaluation set against two retrieval configurations and read the difference instead of guessing it.

comparison · baseline vs candidateexample report
baseline512-token chunks · dense · top-k 5
candidate800-token chunks · hybrid + reranker · top-k 10
MetricBaselineCandidateDelta
Recall@573.8%82.1%+8.3
MRR69.4%75.2%+5.8
nDCG@1076.1%80.9%+4.8
P95 latency190 ms279 ms+47%
Cost / query$0.003$0.006+100%

Verdict

Improvement with regressions

Retrieval quality improved overall, but 7 queries regressed. Most regressions occurred in exact terminology and multi-hop queries.

18

Improved

7

Regressed

59

Unchanged

Diagnose

See what actually got worse.

Average scores hide the queries you broke. Every regression is listed with enough context to act on it.

regressions · 7 queriesexample report
  • Query #23

    What is the refund policy for annual subscriptions?

    baselineRelevant document — rank #2
    candidateRelevant document — rank #11

    Possible issue

    Exact-term result was demoted after reranking.

  • Query #41

    Which regions support data residency for enterprise plans?

    baselineNo relevant document retrieved
    candidateNo relevant document retrieved

    Possible issue

    This may be a corpus coverage or ingestion problem rather than a ranking problem.

Scope

What you get.

  • Baseline vs candidate retrieval comparison
  • Recall@K, MRR, and nDCG
  • Query-level regression detection
  • Improved / regressed / unchanged breakdown
  • Latency comparison
  • Cost comparison
  • Failure-oriented report
  • Markdown / HTML report export
  • Simple benchmark dataset format

Fit

Built for teams that already have a RAG system.

This is for you if

  • You have a RAG pipeline running.
  • You already have evaluation or test queries.
  • You actively change retrieval configuration.
  • You want a repeatable comparison.
  • You don't want to inspect results manually every time.

Probably not for you if

  • You're still building your first RAG demo.
  • You don't have any evaluation queries yet.
  • You need a complete observability platform.
  • You're looking for enterprise monitoring and tracing.

Pricing

Early Access

$39No subscription.

One-time early access pricing for the validation release.

Validation release — no payment will be collected today.

RetrievalBench isn't available yet.

I'm currently validating whether this is worth building.

You won't be charged today.

If you'd pay $39 for early access when it launches, let me know below.

Would you pay $39 for RetrievalBench?

Your email will only be used for RetrievalBench validation and launch updates.