Machine Learning · head to head
ClearML vs Galileo

ClearML
Machine Learning
Open-source MLOps platform for experiment tracking and orchestration
- From
- Free
- Free plan
- Yes

Galileo
AI
Evaluation and observability platform for GenAI applications and agents
- From
- Free
- Free plan
- Yes
The short version
- Each has a real cost: ClearML broad scope means more to learn and more to run than a focused tracking tool; Galileo the free plan is limited to 5,000 traces per month, which is quickly outgrown by production workloads.
- They diverge on capability: ClearML covers Experiment tracking, Galileo covers Pre-built evaluations.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 29 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which ClearML and Galileo actually diverge.
Identical on both: starting price (Free), free tier (Yes), user rating (Not yet rated).
What each one covers
Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.
Only in ClearML
- Experiment tracking
- Remote execution
- Data versioning
- Pipelines
Only in Galileo
- Pre-built evaluations
- Ground truth capture
- Luna models
- Agent behavior analysis
- Production guardrails
- Flexible deployment
What people use each for
The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.
ClearML
- Tracking experiments across a team so results are reproduciblenot Galileo
- Moving training from laptops to shared GPU hardware without repackagingnot Galileo
- Versioning datasets alongside the experiments that consumed themnot Galileo
Galileo
- Evaluating RAG and agent applications before production releasenot ClearML
- Monitoring live GenAI applications for failures and driftnot ClearML
- Applying real-time guardrails without custom integration worknot ClearML
- Reducing evaluation costs using distilled Luna judge modelsnot ClearML
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
ClearML
- Broad scope means more to learn and more to run than a focused tracking tool
- Self-hosting the server is real infrastructure — database, file storage and web server
- Documentation quality is uneven across the newer parts of the platform
- Smaller community than the most popular tracking tools, so fewer worked examples exist
Galileo
- The free plan is limited to 5,000 traces per month, which is quickly outgrown by production workloads.
- Real-time guardrails and unlimited trace capacity are reserved for the custom-priced Enterprise tier.
- Pro plan pricing scales with trace volume, so costs can grow unpredictably as usage increases.
- On-premises deployment requires an Enterprise contract rather than being available self-serve.
Pricing, plan by plan
ClearML
Free- Open sourceFree
- Experiment tracking
- Pipelines
- Self-hosted server
Galileo
Free- FreeFree
- 5,000 traces/month
- Unlimited users
- Unlimited custom evaluations
- Pro$100/month
- 50,000 traces/month
- Standard role-based access control
- Advanced analytics and insights
- Enterprise$undefined/mo
- Unlimited trace capacity
- Custom rate limits
- Hosted, VPC, or on-prem deployment
Which should you pick?
Choose ClearML if
- You need experiment tracking.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Linux, macOS, Windows, Docker, Kubernetes.
- You also want remote execution.
Choose Galileo if
- You need pre-built evaluations.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on web, api.
- You also want ground truth capture.
Questions people ask
- Is ClearML or Galileo better?
- Neither clearly leads. ClearML starts at Free and Galileo at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, ClearML or Galileo?
- ClearML starts at Free and Galileo at Free.
- Does ClearML or Galileo run on more platforms?
- ClearML runs on Linux, macOS, Windows, Docker, Kubernetes. Galileo runs on web, api.
- Can I use ClearML for free?
- Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
- What is ClearML best used for?
- ClearML is most often used for tracking experiments across a team so results are reproducible, moving training from laptops to shared gpu hardware without repackaging, versioning datasets alongside the experiments that consumed them. Of those, tracking experiments across a team so results are reproducible and moving training from laptops to shared gpu hardware without repackaging are not what Galileo is typically brought in for.
- What can ClearML do that Galileo cannot?
- ClearML covers Experiment tracking, Remote execution, Data versioning, Pipelines. Galileo covers Pre-built evaluations, Ground truth capture, Luna models, Agent behavior analysis.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
ClearML: Is ClearML free?
The open-source version is free and self-hostable. Hosted and enterprise tiers are paid.
Galileo: What does Galileo cost?
Galileo offers a free plan, a Pro plan at $100/month billed yearly (with a 33% annual discount), and a custom-priced Enterprise plan for unlimited trace capacity.
SourceClearML: How much code does tracking require?
Very little — adding a couple of lines to an existing training script captures parameters, metrics and environment automatically.
Galileo: Is there a free plan, and what are its limits?
The Free plan includes 5,000 traces per month with unlimited users and unlimited custom evaluations, aimed at developers and small teams experimenting with GenAI.
SourceClearML: Does ClearML replace MLflow?
It covers MLflow’s tracking and adds orchestration, remote execution and data versioning. Whether that breadth is an advantage or extra weight depends on whether you need the rest.
Galileo: How is usage metered?
Galileo's pricing scales based on the number of traces processed each month, with Free capped at 5,000, Pro at 50,000, and Enterprise offering unlimited trace capacity.
SourceRelated pages
Other head to heads
- ClearML vs MLflow
- ClearML vs Weights & Biases
- ClearML vs Comet ML
- ClearML vs Neptune.ai
- ClearML vs Dataiku
- ClearML vs Pachyderm
- ClearML vs Azure Machine Learning
- ClearML vs Domino Data Lab
- ClearML vs DVC
- ClearML vs AWS SageMaker
- ClearML vs Google Vertex AI
- ClearML vs DataRobot
- ClearML vs H2O.ai
- ClearML vs Hugging Face
- ClearML vs Kubeflow
- ClearML vs Langwatch
- ClearML vs LlamaIndex
- ClearML vs Milvus
- ClearML vs Arize AI
- ClearML vs PromptLayer
- ClearML vs Helicone
- ClearML vs Writer
- ClearML vs C3 AI Suite
- ClearML vs Poolside
- ClearML vs Deepgram
- ClearML vs Tabnine
- ClearML vs You.com
- ClearML vs Anthropic API
- ClearML vs AutoGen
- ClearML vs Cartesia
- ClearML vs Verbit
- ClearML vs Wordtune
- ClearML vs Adobe Firefly
- ClearML vs Amazon Q Developer
- ClearML vs Anyword
- ClearML vs Atlas Cloud
- Galileo vs MLflow
- Galileo vs Weights & Biases
- Galileo vs Comet ML
- Galileo vs Neptune.ai
- Galileo vs Dataiku
- Galileo vs Pachyderm
- Galileo vs Azure Machine Learning
- Galileo vs Domino Data Lab
- Galileo vs DVC
- Galileo vs AWS SageMaker
- Galileo vs Google Vertex AI
- Galileo vs DataRobot
- Galileo vs H2O.ai
- Galileo vs Hugging Face
- Galileo vs Kubeflow
- Galileo vs Langwatch
- Galileo vs LlamaIndex
- Galileo vs Milvus
- Galileo vs Arize AI
- Galileo vs PromptLayer
- Galileo vs Helicone
- Galileo vs Writer
- Galileo vs C3 AI Suite
- Galileo vs Poolside
- Galileo vs Deepgram
- Galileo vs Tabnine
- Galileo vs You.com
- Galileo vs Anthropic API
- Galileo vs AutoGen
- Galileo vs Cartesia
- Galileo vs Verbit
- Galileo vs Wordtune
- Galileo vs Adobe Firefly
- Galileo vs Amazon Q Developer
- Galileo vs Anyword
- Galileo vs Atlas Cloud
