Both claim to cut your Claude bill. They solve different problems. Here's how to pick.
Run the free audit at aiusage.ai →| Dimension | AIUsage | Autocache |
|---|---|---|
| Pitch | Stop overpaying for Claude — 70-90% on same prompts | Cut Claude API costs up to 90% via automatic prompt caching |
| Savings claim | 70-90% (6 verified cases: 76-84%) | up to 90% |
| Workload coverage | Any Claude API workload — support, agents, code review, content, CRM codegen | Complex agent workflows with large system prompts |
| Setup | One-line code change (swap API endpoint) | Self-hosted proxy for n8n / Flowise / LangChain / LlamaIndex |
| Free audit | Yes — paste bill, see number, no signup | Typically no |
| Mechanism disclosure | Private — "try it, the number is testable" | Automatically injects Anthropic prompt cache_control — publicly documented |
| Scope | Broad (workload-agnostic) | caching-eligible agent platforms |
If your Claude usage is complex agent workflows with large system prompts and you're comfortable with self-hosted proxy for n8n / flowise / langchain / llamaindex, Autocache is purpose-built for that shape. 70 GitHub stars if that matters to you.
If your Claude spend spans multiple workload types (support automation, agent loops, code review, content drafting, daily coding) or you want to audit your bill before you commit to any cost-reduction tool, AIUsage gives you the number first. No CLI install, no platform dependency, no code rewrite.
Autocache helps if your bill is dominated by repeated-system-prompt agent workflows. AIUsage works out-of-the-box on any Claude workload with no platform dependency.
Across six audited workloads, AIUsage's measured delta was 76-84% on the same prompts, blind A/B tested: