Compare
Neptune vs Sacred + Omniboard
vs
Neptune
Sacred + Omniboard
Commercial Requirements
Commercial requirements
Is the product available on-premises and / or in your private/public cloud?
Can be deployed both on-premises and/or on the cloud, but has to be self-managed
Is the product delivered as commercial software, open-source software, or a managed cloud service?
Managed cloud service
Open-source
SLOs / SLAs: Does the vendor provide guarantees around service levels?
No
General Capabilities
Setup
What are the infrastructure requirements?
No special requirements other than having the neptune-client installed and access to the internet if using managed hosting. Check here for infrastructure requirements for on-prem deployment.
How much do you have to change in your training process?
Minimal. Just a few lines of code needed for tracking. Read more
Minimal. Only a few lines of code need to be added
Does it integrate with the training process via CLI/YAML/Client library?
Yes, through the neptune-client library
Yes, through the sacred python library, and their CLI
Serverless UI
No
No
Flexibility, speed, and accessibility
Customizable metadata structure
How can you access model metadata?
â gRPC API
No
No
â REST API
No
No
â Java SDK
No
No
â Julia SDK
No
No
Supported operations
Logging modes
Mobile support
No
No
Experiment Tracking
Log and display of metadata
Dataset
Code versions
Metrics and losses
Rich format
â Neural Network Histograms
No
No
â Prediction visualization (tabular)
No
No
â Prediction visualization (image)
No
No
â Prediction visualization (image â interactive confusion matrix for image classification)
No
NA
â Prediction visualization (image â overlayed prediction masks for image segmentation)
No
NA
â Prediction visualization (image â overlayed prediction bounding boxes for object detection)
No
NA
Hardware consumption
â TPU
No
No
System information
â Execution command
No
No
Environment config
Files
Comparing experiments
Parameters and metrics
â Parameter Importance plot
No
No
Rich format (side by side)
â Video
No
No
â Audio
No
No
â Plots
No
No
â Interactive visualization (HTML)
No
No
â Neural Network Histograms
No
No
â Prediction visualization (image, video, audio)
No
No
Code
â Git
No
No
Environment
â pip requirements.txt
No
No
â conda env.yml
No
No
â Docker Dockerfile
No
No
Hardware
System information
â Execution command
No
No
Data versions
Files
â Models
No
No
â CSV
No
No
Custom compare dashboards
â Logging custom comparisons from notebooks/code
No
No
Organizing and searching experiments and metadata
Experiment table customization
Experiment filtering and searching
Custom dashboards for a single experiment
â Custom widgets and plugins
No
No
Reproducibility and traceability
One-command experiment re-run
No
No
Experiment lineage
â List of datasets used downstream
No
No
â List of other artifacts (models) used downstream
No
No
â Downstream artifact dependency graph
No
No
Saving/fetching/caching datasets for experiments
No
No
Collaboration and knowledge sharing
Interactive project-level reports
No
No
Model Registry
Model versioning
Model lineage and evaluation history
Models/experiments created downstream
No
No
History of evaluation/testing runs
No
No
Support for continuous testing
No
No
Users who created a model or downstream experiments
No
No
Access control, model review, and promoting models
Custom stage tags
No
No
Locking model version and downstream runs, experiments, and artifacts
No
No
Compatibility audit (input/output schema)
No
No
Compliance audit (datasets used, creation process approvals, results/explanations approvals)
No
No
CI/CD/CT compatibility
Webhooks
No
No
Model accessibility
No
No
Support for continuous testing
No
No
Model searching
Model packaging
Native packaging system
No
No
Compatibility with packaging protocols (ONNX, etc)
No
No
One model one file or flexible structure
No
No
Integrations with packaging frameworks
No
No
Integrations and Support
Model training
CatBoost
No
No
Gluon
No
No
H2O
No
No
Paddle
No
No
Spacy
No
No
Spark MLlib
No
No
Statsmodel
No
No
Hyperparameter Optimization
Model visualization and debugging
IDEs and Notebooks
Data versioning
CI/CD
Model serving
Seldon
No
No
Cortex
No
No
Databricks
No
No
Model versioning
Seldon
No
No
Fiddler.ai
No
No
Arthur.ai
No
No
LLMs
LangChain
No
No
This table was updated on 30 January 2023. Some information may be outdated.
Report outdated information here.
Report outdated information here.
What are the key advantages of Neptune then?
- Highly developed and customizable comparison features
- Scalability with thousands of runs
- User management and team collaboration features
- 25+ out-of-the box integrations with Python libraries and IDEs
See these features in action
1
Sign up to Neptune and install client library
pip install neptune2
Track experiments
import neptune
run = neptune.init_run()
run["params"] = {
"lr": 0.1, "dropout": 0.4
}
run["test_accuracy"] = 0.843
Register models
import neptune
model = neptune.init_model()
model["model"] = {
"size_limit": 50.0,
"size_units": "MB",
}
model["model/signature"].upload(
"model_signature.json")
Already using Sacred?
Instead of Omniboard, you can integrate Sacred with Neptune and use itâs UI to manage your experiments.
All you need to do is add a NeptuneObserver() to your sacred experimentâs observers:
# Create sacred experiment
ex = Experiment('image_classification', interactive=True)
# Add NeptuneObserver
ex.observers.append(NeptuneObserver(run=neptune_run))Thousands of ML people already chose their tool
Previously used tensorboard and azureml but Neptune is hugely better. In particular, getting started is really easy; documentation is excellent, and the layout of charts and parameters is much clearer.
Simon Mackenzie
AI Engineer and Data Scientist
(âŠ) thanks for the great tool, has been really useful for keeping track of the experiments for my Masterâs thesis. Way better than the other tools Iâve tried (comet / wandb).
I guess the main reason I prefer neptune is the interface, it is the cleanest and most intuitive in my opinion, the table in the center view just makes a great deal of sense. I like that itâs possible to set up and save the different view configurations as well. Also, the comparison is not as clunky as for instance with wandb. Another plus is the integration with ignite, as thatâs what Iâm using as the high-level framework for model training.
Klaus-Michael Lux
Data Science and AI student, Kranenburg, Germany
I guess the main reason I prefer neptune is the interface, it is the cleanest and most intuitive in my opinion, the table in the center view just makes a great deal of sense. I like that itâs possible to set up and save the different view configurations as well. Also, the comparison is not as clunky as for instance with wandb. Another plus is the integration with ignite, as thatâs what Iâm using as the high-level framework for model training.
This thing is so much better than Tensorboard, love you guys for creating it!
DĂĄniel LĂ©vai
Junior Researcher at Rényi Alfréd Institute of Mathematics in Budapest, Hungary
While logging experiments is great, what sets Neptune apart for us at the lab is the ease of sharing those logs. The ability to just send a Neptune link in slack and letting my coworkers see the results for themselves is awesome. Previously, we used Tensorboard + locally saved CSVs and would have to send screenshots and CSV files back and forth which would easily get lost. So Iâd say Neptuneâs ability to facilitate collaboration is the biggest plus.
Greg Rolwes
Computer Science Undergraduate at Saint Louis University
Such a fast setup! Love it:)
Kobi Felton
PhD student in Music Information Processing at Télécom Paris
For me the most important thing about Neptune is its flexibility. Even if Iâm training with Keras or Tensorflow on my local laptop, and my colleagues are using fast.ai on a virtual machine, we can share our results in a common environment.
VĂctor Peinado
Senior NLP/ML Engineer
It only takes 5 minutes to integrate Neptune with your code
Donât overthink it