Compare

Three good paths.
One shared gap.

Your approved platform, a capable AI model, and a semantic layer all have value. The shared evaluation question is where your team still supplies company meaning and checks the answer. Test the configured paths—not assumptions about a category.

Book DemoSee how it works

Start with what already works

Keep the strengths.
Locate the remaining expert work.

Extend your approved BI platform

Keep familiar reports, access controls, and a platform your organization already trusts.

What to test: Where do experts still translate a new question, supply definitions, or check the answer?

Build around a capable AI model

Use a general-purpose model or a custom agent to reason, generate queries, and connect tools.

What to test: How does the team make business interpretations visible and keep supplied meaning available for the next question?

Expand the semantic layer

Curate shared metrics, relationships, and business definitions in the models you already maintain.

What to test: What happens when a question crosses those definitions or needs a new segment, comparison, or analysis pattern?

Inspect your specific alternative

Start with what you are actually considering.

General LLMs

Test the company-context and review layer around the chosen model.

Keep provider choice constant when possible; compare context, ambiguity, plans, evidence, interventions, and maintenance.

Open the comparison →

Text-to-SQL

Test what happens before and around generated SQL.

Include questions where valid SQL can still use the wrong business concept, grain, scope, or comparison.

Open the comparison →

Semantic layer

Keep curated definitions. Test the questions they do not fully specify.

Confirm the exact supported artifact path and compare how missing meaning, conflicts, plans, and evidence are handled.

Open the comparison →

Power BI Copilot

Compare the configured product paths, not a frozen feature list.

Use current Microsoft materials, the tenant capabilities available to your team, the same model, and the same reviewers.

Open the comparison →

The shared rubric

Hold the evaluation boundary constant.

01

Same questions

Use representative, ambiguous, repeated, and consequential questions from the intended workflow.

02

Same starting context

Document the schema, model, definitions, examples, files, prompts, and human context each path receives.

03

Same reviewers

Use the people responsible for business meaning, analytical logic, source access, and use of the result.

04

Same evidence standard

Require the interpretation, logic or SQL, sources, artifacts, interventions, corrections, and failure record needed for review.

A fair proof

Bring the alternative you would otherwise buy or build.

We will use the same 10 questions and record context preparation, retries, interventions, failures, corrections, and review evidence for both paths.

Book DemoSee how it works