One prompt. Four answers. Read them together.
Model choice is usually guesswork dressed up as preference. Side-by-side turns it into something you can look at.
Four steps, no configuration screen.
Write the prompt once
One prompt, sent to every column at the same moment.
Read them in parallel
All four stream at once, so the comparison takes as long as the slowest model, not the sum of four.
Weigh cost against quality
Time to first token and exact spend sit under each column.
Pick a winner and carry on
Mark an answer best and the thread continues on that model with full context. Your votes also train Auto-Route.
Seats
2–4
Typical cost
About 9 credits per run
Best for
Choosing a model for a job you will repeat
What it does and does not do.
Comparison is not something to do on every message. It earns its keep in four places: choosing a model for a repeated job, high-stakes single answers where one model being confidently wrong is expensive, calibrating whether a frontier model is worth its premium on your work, and re-testing after a lab ships something new.
One caution. Side-by-side shows you four answers; it does not tell you which is correct. Where you cannot evaluate the answer yourself, agreement between models is weak evidence — they share training data and share blind spots. Treat consensus as a smell test, not a proof.
The other tools.
See it running.
The demo workspace shows this tool on sample data. No account, no card.
Open the demo
