Plain verdict
Choose Clavinci when you need normalized local session and cache economics, actual and API-equivalent cost, contestable attribution, survived-code ROI, a fixed cross-pillar AI quality model, structural content exclusions, engineer-visible access audit, and collection-health evidence. Choose Faros when you need an enterprise engineering data platform with any-source ingestion, custom metrics and dashboards, AI root-cause analysis, surveys, catalogs, roadmap and capacity forecasting, software capitalization, agent context, workflow automation, and SaaS, hybrid, or on-premise deployment.
Choose Clavinci when
- You need structured session, token-class, cache, model, tool-event, actual-cost, and API-equivalent-cost evidence from local assistants.
- AI spend must reach delivered issues, story points, CI, incidents, and merged code that remains in production after 30 days.
- Attribution must be versioned, replayable, explainable, and contestable through an engineer dispute and admin-resolution workflow.
- DORA, sprint spillover, review, incidents, re-rolls, acceptance, prompt complexity, tool-task fit, churn, and compaction must share one product model.
- The measurement system must structurally exclude defined work content and expose sensitive individual reads to the engineer.
- Administrators need productized collector coverage, freshness, errors, rate limits, crashes, and integration-health evidence.
Choose Faros when
- You need a unified, extensible engineering data model that accepts commercial, on-premise, and custom sources without forcing tool standardization.
- Custom metrics, fully custom dashboards, natural-language queries, root-cause analysis, benchmarks, heatmaps, and workflow automation are requirements.
- Service catalogs, ownership maps, organization and team catalogs, IDP integration, and enterprise-scale permissions belong in the platform.
- Predictable roadmap delivery, capacity allocation, initiative cost, dependencies, budget risk, surveys, and software capitalization belong in scope.
- You need context delivery for AI agents or SaaS, hybrid, and on-premise deployment options.
01 / evidence
Decision ledger
01
Evidence graph and decision scope
ClavinciClavinci joins AI sessions, git, Jira, pull requests, CI, deployments, and incidents in a versioned graph for AI cost, delivery, quality, and governed access decisions.
FarosFaros creates a unified engineering knowledge and data model spanning people, agents, tools, processes, services, products, initiatives, delivery, quality, and business outcomes.
Decision implicationClavinci productizes a specific assistant-to-durable-outcome evidence chain. Faros provides a broad enterprise context and analytics foundation.
02
AI tool and session telemetry
ClavinciNine local collector implementations cover Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Gemini, Kiro CLI and IDE, OpenCode, OpenClaw, and Every Code with sessions, token classes, caches, models, tool events, and compaction.
FarosFaros Token Intelligence publishes spend across teams, tools, and models, maps tokens to work and outcomes, and combines AI tool, code, delivery, and custom-source data through flexible ingestion.
Decision implicationFaros is built for enterprise-wide source flexibility. Clavinci provides a normalized local assistant session contract with explicit cache and tool-event detail.
03
Cost and ROI
ClavinciClavinci calculates actual and API-equivalent cost, dark sessions and tokens, tokens per outcome, cost per issue or story point, AI-attributed CI cost, and cost per merged line that survives 30 days.
FarosFaros traces AI spend across teams, tools, and models to work and outcomes and provides AI ROI, productivity, quality, maturity, and investment analysis.
Decision implicationBoth treat token spend as an input, not success. Clavinci adds explicit API-equivalent costing and a fixed survived-code unit of value.
04
Attribution and disputes
ClavinciClavinci uses time, file overlap, explicit session trailers, and Jira keys, supports proportional multi-session links, replays versioned logic, and lets engineers dispute incorrect attribution.
FarosFaros provides intelligent attribution across teams, services, organization structures, products, initiatives, and AI outcomes through its unified data model.
Decision implicationFaros maps complex enterprise ownership and context. Clavinci goes further on session-level replay, provenance, and a formal correction workflow for measured engineers.
05
DORA and code survival
ClavinciClavinci combines DORA with AI lead time, AI change failure, rework, rollback and hotfix evidence, and 30-day survival of attributed code.
FarosFaros provides DORA, throughput, cycle time, rework, quality, deployment, failure, MTTR, human-versus-AI code analysis, and internal or industry benchmarks.
Decision implicationFaros offers broad customizable delivery and quality analytics. Clavinci ties a defined 30-day survival outcome directly to originating sessions and cost.
06
Jira and sprint flow
ClavinciClavinci compares AI and manual velocity, spillover, cycle count and time, time in status, aging WIP, stale issues, story-point economics, epics, and issue attribution.
FarosFaros unifies non-standardized planning data for initiatives, features, epics, agile health, say-do ratios, planned and unplanned work, scope creep, capacity, dependencies, schedules, budgets, and forecasts.
Decision implicationFaros is stronger for cross-tool roadmap, program, and capacity management. Clavinci is more specific about AI-attributed sprint mechanics and issue economics.
07
PR and review system
ClavinciClavinci measures PR size, first-review time, merge after approval, iterations, self-merge, reviewer turnaround, review load, cross-team review, and stale PRs by AI cohort.
FarosFaros provides PR velocity, cycle-time breakdowns, review speed, load, patterns, cross-team and cross-geography dependencies, quality correlations, and customizable analytics.
Decision implicationFaros provides flexible enterprise review analysis. Clavinci keeps review mechanics directly connected to session cost, Jira work, incidents, and survival.
08
Stability and incidents
ClavinciClavinci joins hotfix rate, incidents, MTBI, on-call page rate, reopen rate, MTTR, and change failure through PagerDuty, Opsgenie, Incident.io, or file adapters.
FarosFaros connects incident management, service health, code coverage, test coverage, test flakiness, change failure, MTTR, deployments, vulnerabilities, and on-call context through its wider data model.
Decision implicationFaros has broader service, quality, and custom-source context. Clavinci productizes a specific AI-attributed incident and on-call evidence set.
09
AI quality signals
ClavinciClavinci combines re-roll rate, tool-task fit, native and inferred acceptance, prompt complexity, churn, compaction, rework, incidents, and 30-day survival.
FarosFaros provides human-versus-AI code analysis, rework, bugs, incidents, code quality, root-cause analysis, developer sentiment, and AI-agent context and guardrails.
Decision implicationFaros goes further into code analysis, causal guidance, and agent context. Clavinci provides a content-excluding session-quality model with replayable outcome provenance.
10
Adoption and tool choice
ClavinciClavinci compares tool and model mix, mix shift, concurrent use, adoption curves, session duration, cost, quality, and attributed outcomes across supported assistants.
FarosFaros supports AI transformation programs with adoption tracking, power-user and dormant-license identification, cohort comparisons, tool tests, before-and-after metrics, benchmarks, enablement, and executive visibility.
Decision implicationFaros offers a broader enterprise transformation program. Clavinci adds detailed session, cache, cost, dispute, and survival evidence for supported tools.
11
Engineer experience
ClavinciEngineers see personal sessions, spend, outcomes, sprint and DORA context, quality, dark work, export, deletion, disputes, and an audit of who accessed their data.
FarosFaros combines developer surveys, self-serve metrics, workflow and sentiment correlations, AI recommendations, IDE and chat access, and context delivery to coding agents.
Decision implicationFaros goes further on surveys, self-service analytics, and agent enablement. Clavinci goes further on personal AI provenance, correction rights, and access accountability.
12
Manager and executive views
ClavinciClavinci provides direct-manager ROI, delivery, review, stability, quality, and adoption views plus privacy-floored aggregates for skip-level leaders.
FarosFaros provides team, service, organization, product, initiative, portfolio, DevEx, AI transformation, finance, roadmap, and executive views with custom dashboards and AI summaries.
Decision implicationFaros has a substantially wider enterprise leadership surface. Clavinci binds individual visibility to a specific reporting-line and audit model.
13
Governance and access
ClavinciDirect-report reads are engineer-visible. Skip-level drill-down needs a reason, peers cannot inspect individuals, aggregates have privacy floors, and anti-metrics block rankings and automated people decisions.
FarosFaros publishes robust RBAC, customizable permissions, automatic role-based redaction, enterprise authentication, compliance controls, and secure deployment options.
Decision implicationFaros has mature and customizable enterprise access. Clavinci goes further on per-read accountability to the engineer and fixed anti-surveillance rules.
14
Content boundary
ClavinciClavinci excludes prompts, responses, source, review comments, issue descriptions and comments, CI logs, environment variables, and secrets by schema and regression test.
FarosFaros can ingest any-source engineering context and its agent-context product uses past pull requests, tickets, and architectural decisions. Field scope follows connectors, configuration, and the selected use case.
Decision implicationFaros's wider context enables code and agent interventions. Clavinci uses an explicitly bounded data envelope for metadata-only measurement and intentionally excludes content-aware features.
15
Service operations
ClavinciClavinci exposes uptime, collector and sync coverage, freshness, silent engineers, parser errors, rate limits, crashes, latency, Jira health, and notification delivery.
FarosFaros publishes monitored data feeds, near-real-time freshness, performance at enterprise scale, high-performance connectors, enterprise security certifications, support, and large-volume infrastructure.
Decision implicationBoth treat data health as operationally important. Clavinci exposes a specific per-collector decision-quality console; Faros emphasizes enterprise-scale feed and platform operations.
16
Planning and automation
ClavinciClavinci sends stale-PR, aging-WIP, dark-session, and hotfix triggers through in-app, Slack, email, or webhooks. It does not provide a general analytics, planning, catalog, or workflow builder.
FarosFaros provides custom metrics and dashboards, natural-language queries, workflow automation, SLA enforcement, catalogs, initiative tracking, capacity and budget forecasting, capitalization, surveys, and AI recommendations.
Decision implicationFaros is decisively stronger for customization, planning, catalogs, and automation. Clavinci concentrates action on operational risk from its governed attribution graph.
17
Deployment model
ClavinciClavinci is a commercial company-operated hosted service with local collectors. Customers control integrations and governance but do not deploy or maintain the application stack.
FarosFaros supports SaaS, hybrid, and on-premise deployments plus cloud connectors, Source CLI, Events CLI, webhooks, APIs, and custom sources.
Decision implicationFaros supports a much wider infrastructure and ingestion envelope. Clavinci offers one vendor-operated service model and no customer deployment rights.
02 / custody
Deployment and data custody
Clavinci operates the commercial application, API, database, upgrades, backups, and service health while local collectors retain full-fidelity engineer history and send only the structured event contract. Customers control connector authorization, project scope, identity, retention requirements, and permitted use. Faros supports SaaS, hybrid, and on-premise deployment with cloud connectors, CLIs, webhooks, APIs, and custom sources. Buyers should compare who operates each component, which context enters the data model, where data resides, how role redaction works, how upgrades and incidents are handled, and which deployment rights the contract grants.
03 / attribution
AI telemetry and outcome attribution
Faros now positions Token Intelligence as a core platform capability and maps AI spend across tools, teams, and models to work and outcomes. It also brings human-versus-AI code analysis, transformation benchmarks, root-cause analysis, surveys, and any-source enterprise context. Clavinci's difference is the productized proof path: local assistant sessions and cache classes, actual and API-equivalent cost, versioned multi-signal links to commits and Jira, formal disputes, and continuation through PR, CI, deployment, incident, sprint, quality, and 30-day survival evidence.
04 / access
Privacy, access, and individual visibility
Faros publishes enterprise-grade RBAC, role-based redaction, compliance certifications, secure deployment choices, and granular controls. Its value also comes from broad engineering context, code analysis, surveys, tickets, past pull requests, architectural decisions, and customizable ingestion where enabled. Clavinci chooses a different contract: defined work content cannot enter the schema, individual reads are visible to the engineer, skip-level drill-down is reasoned, aggregates have privacy floors, peers are restricted, and harmful rankings or automated people decisions are blocked.
05 / competitive advantage
Where each product goes further
Where Clavinci goes further
- Clavinci productizes normalized local session, token-class, cache, model, tool-event, actual-cost, and API-equivalent-cost evidence across nine collector implementations.
- Clavinci provides versioned multi-signal attribution, proportional session links, replay, engineer disputes, admin resolution, and cost per merged line that survives 30 days.
- Clavinci joins sprint spillover, incidents, on-call load, re-rolls, tool-task fit, prompt complexity, churn, and compaction to AI-attributed cohorts in one fixed model.
- Clavinci structurally excludes work content and provides engineer-visible individual-read audit, reasoned skip-level access, privacy floors, peer restrictions, and anti-metric refusals.
- Clavinci exposes collector coverage, sync freshness, silent engineers, parser errors, rate limits, crashes, latency, Jira health, and notification delivery as product behavior.
Where Faros goes further
- Faros provides a unified and extensible enterprise engineering data model, any-source ingestion, custom metrics, custom dashboards, natural-language queries, and workflow automation that Clavinci does not offer.
- Faros provides service, team, and organization catalogs, ownership mapping, IDP integration, large-scale RBAC, role redaction, and SaaS, hybrid, or on-premise deployment.
- Faros provides roadmap and initiative forecasting, capacity and dependency analysis, budget risk, investment strategy, and software capitalization that Clavinci does not offer.
- Faros provides developer surveys, survey-to-telemetry analysis, benchmarks, root-cause guidance, human-versus-AI code analysis, and wider executive analytics.
- Faros provides context delivery and guardrails for coding agents using past pull requests, tickets, and architectural decisions, a content-aware capability Clavinci intentionally cannot provide.
06 / buyer questions
Questions to take into evaluation
- 01
Can the product trace one local assistant session through tokens, cache, cost, commit, issue, pull request, CI, deployment, incident, and 30-day survival?
- 02
Which AI tools provide direct session and token data, which sources are inferred, and how are custom or on-premise tools normalized?
- 03
Can attribution be replayed after logic changes, and can an engineer dispute and follow correction of a wrong relationship?
- 04
Can we compare AI and manual work across sprint spillover, review turnaround, change failure, incidents, rework, and survived code?
- 05
Which source, prompt, code, PR, ticket, survey, architectural, CI, and incident content enters each selected Faros or Clavinci workflow?
- 06
Who can inspect an individual across UI, AI assistant, API, export, and custom dashboards, and can that engineer see each access?
- 07
Do we need any-source ingestion, custom metrics, dashboards, natural-language analysis, catalogs, or general workflow automation?
- 08
Do we need roadmap forecasting, capacity and budget analysis, capitalization, surveys, benchmarks, code analysis, or agent context?
- 09
Can admins distinguish incomplete collection from genuine trends through feed, collector, freshness, failure, and integration-health evidence?
- 10
Which SaaS, hybrid, on-premise, or hosted-only responsibility model and commercial package fits procurement?