Adapterly
AI FinOps engagement · Nordic B2B

Make your AI workloads cost less.

We analyze one production AI workflow, benchmark cheaper alternatives and hand you a prioritized implementation plan. The goal is the lowest-cost configuration that still meets your required quality, latency, reliability and security thresholds.

An engagement today. A continuous optimization product in time.

Based in Helsinki. Serving Nordic B2B production AI teams.

Illustrative example Customer support agent
Same workload. 63% lower cost.
Current €0.84 per resolved case · quality 92.1%
Optimized €0.31 per resolved case · quality 91.9%
63% lower cost · quality within 0.2 pp
Where the savings came from
Context compression−€0.14
Model routing−€0.12
Semantic caching−€0.09
Cheaper extraction model−€0.07
Remove redundant calls−€0.06
Deterministic validation−€0.05
$6 372
Internal analysis Annualized cache-prefix waste in one power-user's Claude Code sessions. $531/month × 12 = $6 372/year of API-equivalent value burned re-writing a prompt cache that should have been read cheaply. 12 sessions analyzed. Numbers produced by our own analyzer, not an estimate.
The problem

AI costs are more than token prices.

Model prices are falling rapidly. But production AI systems are becoming more complex.

  • Agents make multiple model calls per user request.
  • Context windows grow with every turn.
  • Retries and fallbacks accumulate silently.
  • Tools get called unnecessarily.
  • Expensive models handle tasks a cheaper model would solve.
  • The bill becomes hard to understand, predict or optimize.

Adapterly analyzes the whole workload — not just the model layer.

The surface area

Optimize every layer of your AI stack

Waste hides in six different places. The biggest savings almost always come from combining changes across layers. We're model-neutral — cheapest option that meets your quality bar, whether that's Claude, GPT, Gemini, Llama or a mix.

01

Model optimization

Use the cheapest model that meets the quality requirement — not the newest, not the biggest. Open-source models (Llama, Mistral, Qwen) often meet the bar at a fraction of the cost.

  • Benchmarking
  • Model routing
  • Smaller models
  • Open-source
  • Self-hosted
02

Context optimization

Send models only the information they actually need to answer the current question.

  • Context compression
  • Prompt optimization
  • History reduction
  • RAG context
03

Workflow optimization

Find the expensive behavior hiding inside agent loops, retries and tool use.

  • Redundant calls
  • Agent loops
  • Retry explosions
  • Bad fallbacks
04

Caching & reuse

Stop paying repeatedly for the same intelligence on the same inputs.

  • Semantic cache
  • Response cache
  • Intermediate reuse
  • Precomputation
05

AI → software

Not every problem needs an LLM. Identify the stable operations that can safely become code.

  • Rules
  • SQL
  • Schema validation
  • Deterministic workflows
06

Infrastructure

Optimize where and how AI workloads run once the logical stack is clean.

  • API vs self-hosted
  • EU data residency
  • GPU utilization
  • Batching
The method

From AI spend to measurable savings

A five-step loop. Each step produces evidence the next step depends on. No optimization ships without verification.

01
Observe
Capture model calls, tokens, latency, retries, tools.
02
Measure
Calculate cost per workflow and business outcome.
03
Benchmark
Test alternatives on real eval data.
04
Optimize
Ship the highest-impact changes, ordered by ROI.
05
Verify
Confirm savings and quality with production data.

The loop repeats — the model market changes weekly and the best fit for each task moves with it.

Example

See exactly where the money goes.

One end-to-end workload analyzed, plus where open-source substitutions typically save the most. All numbers illustrative — actual savings depend on your data.

Invoice processing agent

Illustrative example
Monthly runs48,200
Successful runs46,910
AI spend€6,420
€ / success€0.137
Cost breakdown (current)
Reasoning models€2,410
Extraction€1,380
Context€940
Retries€620
Tool calls€410
Other€660
Potential savings identified
Model routing−€1,120
Context compression−€640
Caching−€510
Retry optimization−€370
Deterministic validation−€290
Potential saving
€2,930 / month
≈ €35,160 / year at current volume

Where open-source substitutions save the most

Typical prices. Requires quality benchmarking on your data before switching.
Document extraction (10k docs/day) — GPT-4o Vision → Llama 3.2 Vision (Together / self-hosted)−€780 / mo
Support ticket classification — Claude Sonnet → Mistral / Qwen 7B (Groq / self-hosted)−€310 / mo
Content summarization — GPT-4o → Llama 3.1 8B (Groq / self-hosted)−€510 / mo
Simple Q&A / FAQ routing — GPT-4o mini → Qwen 2.5 7B (Groq / self-hosted)−€220 / mo
EU data residency

When your data can't leave the EU (GDPR, sector rules, customer contracts), we host the open-source model on EU infrastructure — same optimization, no US round-trip. Frontier models like Claude and GPT can't offer this.

When open-source is not the answer

Complex reasoning, long-context synthesis, safety-critical outputs, and low-volume tasks (where hosting overhead outweighs API savings) usually still belong on a frontier model. The point isn't cheap — it's cheap enough at the required quality.

Use cases

How a review plays out.

Two representative examples of what the analysis + implementation typically looks like. Numbers are illustrative — actual savings depend on your data and quality thresholds.

Construction / industrial Illustrative example

Site document processing agent

4,000 documents per day — invoices, safety reports, quality inspection forms — processed through a vision LLM. Customer requires EU data residency.

Before
GPT-4o Vision (all documents)
€2,400 / mo
After
Llama 3.2 Vision (EU) + GPT-4o fallback
€380 / mo
What Adapterly found
  • 85% of documents are routine (clean scans, standard forms) — open-source vision handles them at equal accuracy.
  • Only handwritten or skewed scans (~15%) needed to escalate to GPT-4o.
  • Structured fields (invoice number, VAT ID, date) moved to regex — 30% of calls no longer hit any LLM.
  • EU-hostable option meets the data-residency requirement without extra work.
−84% cost
≈ €24,000 saved per year · Accuracy unchanged · Data stays in EU
B2B SaaS · Marketing Illustrative example

Content production pipeline

Blog drafts, LinkedIn posts, and multi-language email translations for a growing SaaS. All calls originally routed to Claude Sonnet.

Before
Claude Sonnet (every call)
€1,800 / mo
After
Llama 3.3 70B (Groq) drafts + Sonnet for publish
€520 / mo
What Adapterly found
  • Only final published paragraphs need frontier-model quality.
  • First drafts and translation iterations are throw-away — humans edit them regardless.
  • Llama 3.3 70B on Groq produces editor-ready drafts at ~10× the speed of Claude Sonnet.
  • Language detection moved from LLM to a fastText library — cuts another 15% off inference cost.
−71% cost
≈ €15,400 saved per year · 3× faster iteration · Same publish quality
Fit

Who Adapterly is for.

Terrible fit for some organizations. Exceptional fit for others. We prefer to be clear about which you are before you talk to us.

Good fit

  • Best fit: €2k–€100k / month in model spend
  • AI cost is starting to appear on the P&L
  • Late-stage POC or production workload with measurable usage and quality criteria
  • Nordic B2B — construction, industrial, finance, services
  • You have real workflows and real users, not just experiments

Not a fit

  • Consumer AI apps — different economics
  • Early experiments without stable workloads or evaluation data
  • Usually not economical below ~€1k / month AI spend
  • You want a dashboard, not changes to your system
  • You want the cheapest model regardless of quality
Start here

Start with one workflow.

A focused engagement that produces a defensible savings number and a prioritized plan — before you commit to anything larger.

AI Cost Review

Free · Beta
We analyze one production AI workflow and answer:
  • Where does the money actually go?
  • What is unnecessarily expensive?
  • Which models could be replaced without hurting quality?
  • Where can context be reduced?
  • Where would caching help?
  • Which AI steps don't need AI?
  • What could open-source or self-hosted models save?
  • What is the realistic annual savings potential?
Deliverables

Cost baseline · Optimization opportunities · Model comparison · Quality/cost analysis · Prioritized recommendations · Estimated annual savings.

No cost during our beta. We're validating the service with a small number of real workloads. In return we ask for honest feedback and, if the analysis is useful, a case-study conversation. Implementation work (if you choose to proceed) is priced separately.
Prefer to see the numbers first?
Try the self-service analyzer →
Upload your OpenAI or Anthropic usage log. Get a savings report in ~30 seconds. Runs locally — nothing is stored.

Request an AI Cost Review

Tell us a bit about your workload. We'll reply within one business day to arrange a 30-minute call and, if it's a fit, scope the review.

We reply within one business day. No newsletter, no marketing spam — the address is used only for this conversation.