Stop guessing which prompt is better

Manual prompt testing is slow, biased, and statistically meaningless. ClawSplit replaces gut feel with controlled experiments and real data.

The problem

The manual prompt testing workflow

Sound familiar? This is how most teams compare prompts today.

Copy prompt A into your LLM playground

Run a test message and eyeball the output

Copy prompt B into the same playground

Run the same test message (if you remember it)

Paste both outputs into a spreadsheet to compare

Hope your sample size of 1 is representative

Result: hours spent, no statistical confidence, and a decision based on whoever argued loudest in the team meeting.

Compare

See how automated A/B testing stacks up against the manual workflow.

	Manual testing	ClawSplit
⏱️Setup time	15-30 min per comparison	60 seconds — paste and go
📊Sample size	1-2 test messages	5-20 samples per variant, configurable
🧪Statistical rigor	None — gut feel only	Two-proportion z-test with p-values
💰Cost tracking	Unknown until the bill arrives	Per-variant cost breakdown in real time
🔁Reproducibility	Different context every time	Same test inputs, controlled conditions
👥Team collaboration	Screenshots in Slack	Shareable results URL with full data

How it works

No statistics degree required. ClawSplit handles the math.

Enter your current prompt and the variant you want to test. No config, no setup.

ClawSplit runs both variants against the same test inputs in parallel. Fair, controlled, automated.

See the winner with p-values, confidence intervals, cost breakdowns, and latency comparisons.

Paste two prompt variants and see real results from live LLM calls in under 60 seconds. No credit card, no account needed.

Free forever. No credit card required.