Live Experiment Estimator — v2.4.1[process running]

Machines that design
other machines.

Input your current experiment parameters. Watch your backlog collapse.

hyperparameter.estimate — bashPID 8471 · 07:24:53
Experiment Compression
00runs
GPU-hrs Saved
0
hours reclaimed
Compute Savings
$0
estimated savings
scroll
Finding 01Benchmark Data

96.4% accuracy. 14 runs.
Your team needed 318 and got 94.1%.

Across 12 benchmark tasks, Hyperparameter AutoNAS consistently outperforms hand-tuned architectures while using 95.6% fewer experiment iterations.

Hyperparameter AutoNAS
96.4%
14 search iterations · CIFAR-100 · ResNet-family
Random Search (baseline)
91.2%
318 iterations · 6.2× more compute
Bayesian Optimization
93.7%
84 iterations · 2.4× more compute
Hand-tuned (senior researcher)
94.1%
6 months · PhD-level expertise required
Grid Search
88.5%
512+ iterations · impractical at scale
Benchmark conducted on ImageNet-subset (100K samples), CIFAR-100, and Penn Treebank. 
All methods were given identical compute budgets (GPU-hours). Hyperparameter AutoNAS uses a differentiable 
architecture search (DARTS-variant) combined with multi-fidelity Bayesian optimization. 
Results averaged across 5 independent seeds. Confidence intervals at 95%.
Hardware: 8× NVIDIA A100 80GB. Evaluation period: 2025-Q3 through 2026-Q1.
Finding 02vs. Competing Platforms

7 of 7 metrics.
No category where we don't win outright.

Evaluated against three anonymized commercial AutoML platforms and an expert hand-tuning baseline. Cyan cells indicate categories where Hyperparameter leads.

Metric
Hyperparameter
Platform A
Platform B
Platform C
Manual
Search Latency
hrs to first result
2.1
8.4
5.7
12.3
168–720
Final Model Accuracy
% on held-out test set
96.4%
93.1%
94.8%
92.6%
94.1%
Compute Cost
$/benchmark task
$47
$312
$189
$408
$2,100+
Setup Time
hrs to first run
0.5
6.0
3.2
8.5
40+
Architecture Space
ops in search space
10¹⁸
10¹²
10¹⁴
10¹⁰
Manual
Multi-objective Support
accuracy + latency + size
✓ Native
✗ Single obj
~ Partial
✗ Single obj
✗ Impractical
Reproducibility
seed-to-seed variance
±0.12%
±1.8%
±0.9%
±2.4%
±3.1%
Hyperparameter wins
Competitor result
Platform names anonymized per NDA
Finding 03Architecture Search Results

Novel architectures your team
wouldn't have tried.

AutoNAS doesn't search the same design space human researchers explore. It finds architectures that break conventional intuition — and consistently validates them.

ARC-0041
MixedDepthNet-41
Image Classification
Accuracy
96.4%+2.3%
vs 94.1% baseline
deployed
ARC-0089
SparseAttn-89
Language Modeling
Accuracy
94.8%+3.5%
vs 91.3% baseline
validated
ARC-0127
EdgeEfficient-127
Mobile Inference
Accuracy
91.2%+3.6%
vs 87.6% baseline
deployed
ARC-0203
GraphFlow-203
Molecular Property
Accuracy
89.7%+6.5%
vs 83.2% baseline
validated
Finding 04Cost Analysis

$34K/year.
Manual tuning costs 14.8× more.

Total cost of ownership including compute, tooling, and researcher time. Hyperparameter replaces the experiment backlog that consumes your team.

Hyperparameter AutoNAS
$2,840/mo$34,080/yr
Manual Tuning (3 researchers)
$42,000/mo$504,000/yr
Platform A (enterprise tier)
$18,500/mo$222,000/yr
Platform B (pro tier)
$9,200/mo$110,400/yr
Platform C (standard)
$6,800/mo$81,600/yr
Full Benchmark Report · PDF

Download the complete methodology

48 pages. Every benchmark, every architecture, every cost breakdown. Reproducible experiments with full source code and seed logs.

Work email required · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime