Both of these are kind of silly and vendors trying to sell you tooling you probably don't need.

In a gold rush, each is trying to sell you a different kind of shovel claiming theirs to be the best when you really should go find a geologist and and figure out where the vein is.

The framing in this post is really weird. Automated evals can be much more informative than unit tests because the results can be much more fine grained. A/B testing in production is not suitable for determining whether all of one's internal experiments are successful or not.

I don't doubt that Raindrop's product is worthwhile to model vendors, but the post seems like its audience is C suite folks who have no clue how anything works. Do their most important customers even have any of these?

Founder of a/b testing company accuses founder of evals company of misrepresenting how a/b tests are used in practice, then concludes by misrepresenting how evals are used in practice: "Or you can write 10,000,000 evals."

Could've easily been framed as "you need both evals and a/b testing," but instead they chose this route which comes across as defensive, disingenuous, and desperate.

BTW, if a competitor ever writes a whole post to refute something you barely alluded to without even mentioning their name... congratulations, you've won.