ML Env

Use casesFinance & admin

Check expense claims against your written expense policy

Checks each expense claim against your written policy and drafts a note on which rules apply and what's missing, before finance decides.

How it works
When a staff expense claim comes in, the system retrieves the relevant rules from your expense policy — limits, allowed categories, receipt requirements, travel rules — and drafts a note: which rules apply, whether the claim appears within them, and what's missing ('hotel above the per-night limit; no receipt marked as attached for the taxi'). Finance gets a pre-checked claim instead of a bare one, and the draft always cites the rule it used.
Data you need
A written expense policy — many SMBs don't have one, in which case write a one-pager first; the tool can't check against rules that live in the owner's head. Plus the claim as structured fields (category, amount, date, description, receipt attached yes/no), from your expense tool or a simple submission form.
What to expect
Only as good as the policy text — vague policies produce vague checks. It can misjudge which rule applies when several could, which is why every note cites the rule it used, so a wrong pick is caught quickly. It cannot read receipt images (no vision model is served): it checks whether a receipt is marked as attached and whether the declared figures fit the policy, but verifying the receipt actually shows the claimed amount stays with the reviewer. Never let it auto-reject — a false rejection of a legitimate claim annoys staff more than the check saves time.
Where people stay involved
Finance makes the actual approve/reject decision; the model's note is advisory. Edge cases and exceptions are exactly where a human should decide, and the model routes them there. The reviewer still opens the receipt itself.

Which model, and what it costs to run

Qwen3-8B

This job answers while someone waits, so latency comes first: we hold it to a single small card and, within that, take the best independent score on sticking to the document.

Licence
Apache-2.0
Weights at 4-bit
5 GB
Context
32K tokens
Publisher
Alibaba (Qwen Team)

What the hardware costs

One 48 GB card holds it

Rent in the EU
$1.60/hrScaleway, Paris (PAR2)
Buy the card
$7,569new, one-off
Or rent it by the token
$0.04 / $0.04per M in / out · DeepInfra

Hardware only, third-party prices from 2026-07. The figure excludes the KV cache, which grows with context length and how many people use it at once — sized properly in a conversation, not guessed here. Renting by the token is cheaper up front; why our customers still self-host is below.

Sticking to the document

Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard · HHEM · 17 of 18 models measured

Measured on public documents, by a model acting as judge. Read it beside the answer rate: the lowest hallucination rates on this board belong to models that simply decline more often.

Phi-43.7% · answers 80.7%Llama 3.3 70B4.1% · answers 99.5%Gemma 3 12B4.4% · answers 97.4%Qwen3-8B4.8% · answers 99.9%Mistral Small 3.25.1% · answers 97.9%Granite 4.0 Small5.2% · answers 100%DeepSeek-V3.25.3% · answers 96.6%Qwen3-14B5.4% · answers 99.9%
Shorter is betterFree to serveConditions apply⚠ answered under 95%

Independent measurement · Vectara · board updated May 11, 2026

Structured output and tool calls

Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard · v4 · 13 of 18 models measured

Measured in a sandbox, on somebody else's functions. It tells you which models are capable of the shape of the job, not which one will survive contact with your API.

GLM-4.672.38%Kimi K259.06%DeepSeek-V3.254.12%Qwen3-32B48.71%Qwen3-235B-A22B47.99%Qwen3-8B42.57%Qwen3-30B-A3B41.39%Qwen3-14B41.03%
Longer is betterFree to serveConditions apply⚠ answered under 95%

Independent measurement · UC Berkeley (Gorilla project) · board updated 2026-04-12

Reading a long document whole

No benchmark measures this

No current benchmark ranks today's open models here. HELMET showed that the popular test — finding a planted sentence — predicts nothing, and its own table has not been rerun on 2026 models.

So we do not show a chart here. We measure it on your own content, in the first week, and you see the result before anything ships.

The API is cheaper per token. Here is why our customers don't use it.

We will not pretend otherwise: renting a model by the token from a serverless API costs less per million tokens than a card we run for you. We show that price on every use-case page. What it does not include is the part a shop with a customer database actually pays for.

  1. 01

    Your data never leaves hardware you can point at

    A serverless "we don't retain your data" is a clause in a contract. Running the model on a card in Amsterdam is a fact of architecture: your catalogue, tickets and customer records are never sent to a third party at all. For a GDPR audit, that is the difference between a promise and a floor plan.

  2. 02

    The price cannot move without your say-so

    A serverless rate card is somebody else's lever. The provider can raise the price, retire the model, or change the terms, and your cost moves with it. The same model on the same card costs the same next year — you own the number.

  3. 03

    The model cannot be taken away

    Hosted APIs deprecate models on their own schedule; the one you built on can be gone in a quarter. An open-weight model on your own hardware runs for as long as you keep the lights on. No vendor can end-of-life it out from under you.

And the price gap closes with volume: past a card you keep busy — very roughly four billion tokens a month — owning is cheaper outright, even before the three reasons above.

Getting a case like this one from a conversation to production takes about two months, and you can stop at the end of any phase.

Next

Tell us what your team does by hand

Describe the process that takes the most time. We will say plainly whether a model is the right tool for it.