Tell us the constraint. We’ll find the rest.

VectorStackAI tunes your GenAI stack, agents and search alike, end-to-end against your accuracy, latency, and cost tradeoffs, and finds the Pareto frontier of operating points for your KPI.

constraint: optimize accuracy against serving cost
agent
modelgpt-5-mini
system prompthand-written
skill files
tool definitionsin agent context
tools
corpus_search
chunking · top-k
defaults
embed
dense
hosted API · 3072d
sparse
vector db
managed · f32
reranker
web_search
provider
search API
parser
raw HTML

Founded by Shreyas Saxena: PhD INRIA · ex-Apple ML · ex-Cerebras Principal Research Scientist.

01 / Thesis
“Most of the GenAI market competes within a layer. We integrate across them.”

Every vendor optimizes its own layer (best embedding model, best reranker, best vector DB, best agent runtime) and benchmarks itself against others in that same layer. None of them is moving the number the enterprise actually cares about: the product-level metric that cuts vertically across the whole stack. Single-component gaps that look decisive on a leaderboard collapse once the stack is tuned together, so picking your embedding vendor from a benchmark is the wrong place to start.

And what you take away isn’t a tuned configuration of someone else’s APIs: it’s a proprietary stack. Fine-tuned embeddings, learned weights, distilled rerankers, custom indices: assets your competitors can’t replicate by paying the same API bills. The optimization compounds into IP you own, not a recipe anyone can copy.

02 / Products

Two instances of one discipline.

PreciseSearch

Search, tuned as one stack.

Dense, sparse, fusion, and reranking tuned across a heterogeneous corpus, so the production stack hits the accuracy target without inheriting the all-premium cost curve.

9× lower embedding cost
~40% lower total latency
Learn more
AgentGrad

Gradients for agent runtimes.

Textual gradients on a DAG of your agent runtime, used to optimize prompts, tool definitions, and few-shot examples against your KPI, all end-to-end.

62% → 91% tool-call accuracy
legal client engagement
Learn more
03 / Solutions

Same method. Different stakes.

Legal

Legal search, from retrieval to tool calls.

For legal AI teams where quality depends on both finding the right documents and calling the right search surface with the right filters.

30% → 92% correct jurisdiction selection
auto-generated skill files
See the legal work
Finance

QA under an accuracy floor.

For finance teams shipping document QA where a wrong answer is worse than no answer, and the hallucination rate is the product metric.

71% → 93% tool-call accuracy
on XBRL tag selection
Learn more

Tell us your constraint.

Send the KPI you're stuck against: accuracy, latency, cost, hallucination rate. We'll tell you where the frontier is.