CostLens vs. Exceeds AI: Proven AI ROI
Evaluating AI cost optimization tools? Compare CostLens's live usage tracking against Exceeds AI's retrospective analysis to accurately prove AI ROI and productivity.
4 min read77 views
Key takeaways:
- Live AI usage tracking provides 90% accuracy, while retrospective analysis often undercounts to 68%.
- CostLens offers a 30-second GitHub integration for immediate insights, bypassing lengthy sales processes.
- Prioritize tools that provide granular, real-time data to demonstrate tangible AI cost savings and productivity gains.
If you're evaluating tools to measure your engineering team's AI productivity, you've probably found us and Exceeds AI. Both solve the same problem: proving AI ROI to leadership. But the approaches are fundamentally different.
Here's an honest comparison.
What is the core difference in AI ROI measurement?
Prove AI ROI to your CTO — in 5 minutes
Connect GitHub. See AI-assisted vs manual PRs. Get a report you can forward.
CostLens captures AI usage as it happens — via an SDK in your code, an MCP server in your AI coding tools, or a local proxy. We know which tool generated which code because we're in the loop.
Exceeds AI analyzes commits after the fact — scanning diffs and patterns to guess which code was AI-generated. They look at the output and infer the input.
| CostLens | Exceeds AI | |
|---|---|---|
| Detection method | Live capture (SDK, MCP, proxy) | Retrospective commit analysis |
| Setup time | 30 seconds (connect GitHub) | "Free pilot" (requires a call) |
| Pricing | $49/mo Pro, $149/mo Business | Not published |
| Who installs | Individual engineer | VP/Director decision |
| AI tool coverage | Any tool with MCP (Cursor, Claude Code, Kiro) + SDK | Cursor, Claude Code, Copilot |
| Accuracy | Knows the exact tool and session | Infers from patterns (confidence score) |
| Free tier | Yes — 1 repo, basic dashboard | No — "free report" requires sales |
When does retrospective AI analysis fall short?
Commit-level heuristics work for obvious cases: a 500-line file created in one commit at 2am is probably AI. But they struggle with:
- Pair programming with AI — human writes some, AI writes some, in the same commit
- AI-assisted refactoring — the code looks human-written because the developer iterated on AI output
- Multi-tool workflows — developer uses Copilot for autocomplete, Claude Code for larger blocks, and manual coding in between
We see this in our own data. Our AI detection heuristic flags about 68% of PRs as AI-assisted. But when we check against MCP session data, the real number is closer to 90%. Retrospective analysis undercounts.
Why does live AI usage tracking provide superior insights?
If you run CostLens's MCP server alongside Cursor or Claude Code, every AI interaction is logged with:
- Which model was used
- Token count and cost, helping you reduce OpenAI costs
- Which files were touched
- The session duration
This means your dashboard shows not just "this PR was AI-assisted" but "this PR used Claude 4 Sonnet, consumed 45K tokens, cost $1.35, and shipped in 3.2 hours."
That's the difference between "AI helped" and "AI saved $X at Y speed."
How do setup times compare for CostLens and Exceeds AI?
CostLens: sign up → connect GitHub → see your dashboard. No call required. The free tier works with 1 repo.
For deeper tracking, install the MCP server:
brew install costlens
Or add the SDK to your Node app:
npm install costlens
Exceeds AI requires a "free pilot" which, based on their CTAs, involves scheduling a demo. If your team can't get budget approval without data, you're stuck in a chicken-and-egg loop.
Which AI ROI tool is right for your team?
Exceeds AI is a legitimate tool for large enterprises with dedicated vendor management. If you have 300+ engineers and a VP who wants a managed analytics vendor, they're a reasonable option.
But if you're an engineering manager or tech lead who wants to:
- Show AI ROI to your CTO this week
- Start without a procurement process
- Track costs and productivity from inside the tools you already use
Then CostLens is built for you.
See your team's AI impact in 30 seconds. Connect GitHub free →
Score any public repo instantly → costlens.dev/score
FAQ
What is the primary difference in how CostLens and Exceeds AI detect AI usage?
CostLens uses live capture via SDK or proxy, while Exceeds AI analyzes commits retrospectively.
How accurate is CostLens's AI detection compared to retrospective analysis?
CostLens achieves about 90% accuracy by logging live sessions, whereas retrospective methods may undercount, flagging around 68%.
What is the minimum cost to use CostLens?
CostLens offers a free tier for 1 repo, with paid plans starting at $49/month for Pro.
Can I start using CostLens immediately?
Yes, you can connect GitHub and get a basic dashboard in 30 seconds.