Fine-tuning Claude vs GPT vs Llama in production (2026)
Honest comparison across Anthropic, OpenAI, and open-weight fine-tuning options. When fine-tuning wins, when RAG wins, prompt caching math, distillation for cost.
ReadWe build production ML for problems where off-the-shelf AI is not enough. Gradient boosting, custom neural networks, computer vision pipelines, fine-tuned foundation models, and RAG systems - shipped with the inference layer and the monitoring around it. Auditable models, real engineering, no LLM hype.
XGBoost, LightGBM, CatBoost on raw transactional data. Churn prediction, risk scoring, reactivation probability, fraud detection, demand forecasting. Auditable scores with the features that drove them - not a black box. This is what we use when the problem is structured and the cost of a wrong answer is real money.
When the problem has temporal structure or representation needs that gradient boosting cannot capture, we build the architecture. PyTorch and TensorFlow. Time series, sequence modeling, signal generation. Backtested before deployment, monitored after.
Document understanding, OCR, layout analysis, and image classification. Claude Vision and Gemini for general document AI, custom OpenCV and small vision models when the task is constrained and latency matters. We choose the model that fits the constraint, not the model that sounds good.
Fine-tuning where the platform supports it (OpenAI, open-weight Llama and Mistral). Prompt engineering, retrieval-augmented generation, and prompt caching where it does not (Claude). We do not pretend fine-tuning is the answer to every domain problem - often RAG with the right chunking and reranking outperforms a fine-tune at a fraction of the cost and risk.
Embedding selection, chunking strategy, hybrid search, reranking, and grounded generation. We design the retrieval stack so the LLM has the right context, not all the context. This is usually the highest-leverage move on real client problems before reaching for fine-tuning.
FastAPI inference services, batch and streaming pipelines, model versioning, feature stores when justified, drift monitoring, and retraining loops. We ship the model and the surrounding system, not a Jupyter notebook the client cannot run.
Most ML projects fail at the data layer. We audit account-type flags, consent state, label leakage, time-window correctness, and class imbalance before any model is trained. A clean dataset with a simple model beats a dirty dataset with a sophisticated one.
Gradient boosting on tabular data beats neural networks more often than people admit. We do not reach for transformers when XGBoost solves the problem. The right model is the one your team can audit, deploy, and retrain - not the one with the highest-cited paper.
LLMs hallucinate. If the answer drives money (a risk score, a credit decision, a churn probability), we use auditable ML. We use LLMs where hallucination is recoverable: drafting copy a human will review, summarizing for an analyst, generating explanations of an auditable score.
Inference API, monitoring, retraining cadence, rollback path. A model in a notebook is not a deliverable. We do not call something production-ready unless it can run without us.
Gradient boosting on raw transactions, not pre-aggregated averages. Two scores per player, returned with the features that drove them. Scoring core built in two weeks, pilot running on six-plus months of history.
Read case →Custom architecture trained on price and volume data with technical indicator inputs. Entry and exit signals with confidence scores and reasoning, delivered to Telegram. Backtested before deployment.
Read case →Bring us the data and the target. We will scope honestly - including the cases where you do not need us.
Book a 30-min scoping call