Home / Directory / AI SaaS tooling / MLOps & experiment tracking / ClearML
ClearML
Open-core MLOps platform for experiment tracking, orchestration, and GPU cluster control with hosted Community/Pro tiers and self-hosted open source.
ML teams that want experiment tracking and agent/orchestration control, including self-hosted open source or low-cost hosted Pro.
Enterprises standardized on W&B collaboration defaults, or buyers who need Domino-grade governed workspaces as the primary buy.
Verdict
ClearML fits teams that want MLOps plumbing they can self-host or buy cheaply as hosted SaaS. Community covers small teams free; Pro is $15 per user per month plus storage and API usage, with Scale and Enterprise as VPC/on-prem quotes. Practitioners like the orchestration and open-source path; category mindshare still trails Weights & Biases for experiment-first defaults.
Score Breakdown
How ClearML scores in the categories that matter to its buyers.
Pricing
ClearML publishes Community and Pro on clear.ml/pricing, with Scale and Enterprise as custom VPC/on-prem options. Pro list price below is USD as of September 2026.
| Plan | Price | What stands out |
|---|---|---|
| Community | Free (up to 3 hosted users) | Tracking, artifacts, pipelines; capped included usage |
| Pro | $15 / user / mo + usage | Autoscaling, HPO, automations; 120GB storage included |
| Scale / Enterprise | Custom (VPC / on-prem) | SSO, multi-cluster, fractional GPUs, air-gap options |
The Field at a Glance
Where ClearML ranks among MLOps & experiment tracking vendors we reviewed, by Overall Score and relative typical engagement cost.
ClearML scores 7.5, behind Weights & Biases (8.2) and ahead of Comet (6.9) and Domino (6.8). Relative cost is the lowest in this set when teams stay on Community or Pro.
Use-case matrix
| Use case | Fit | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Open-core experiment tracking | Strong | Experiment tracking is ClearML's core product. |
| GPU orchestration / agents | Strong | ClearML orchestrates GPU workloads through its agents. |
| Default collaborative experiment UX | Mixed | W&B still leads habit share. |
| Full governed enterprise DS workbench | Weak | Domino is the heavier suite. |
Review Excerpts
Excerpts from public reviews and forum discussions of ClearML, plus representative buyer views drawn from public information. Paid reviews and pay-for-play sites were excluded.
“I highly recommend ClearML for effortless experiment that just works. ... finally settled on ClearML. WandB pricing is too aggressive for my liking (they force an annual subscription of $600 last I checked)”
“We self-host the open-source server and queue GPU jobs through ClearML agents.”
Representative buyer view
“Our researchers already knew Weights & Biases, so moving habits and dashboards over took longer than the setup.”
Representative buyer view
Where customer reviews couldn't be found, our analysts attempted to give a voice to buyer sentiment, drawing on real information from review sites, forums, and product documentation.
Based on: ClearML’s website
Methodology
This page is an independent evaluation of ClearML for buyers comparing options in MLOps & experiment tracking. AI Industry Reviews accepts no sponsorships, advertising, or pay-for-placement fees. ClearML did not pay for this review.
What we scored
The headline number is an Overall Score on a 0-10 scale. Eight criteria fall under it in two groups.
- Buyer outcomes (for MLOps & experiment tracking)
- Experiment tracking
- Artifact & registry
- Orchestration / hybrid compute
- Enterprise governance
- Company & commercial
- Innovation & product leadership
- Project management & communication
- Pricing
- Contract fairness
Pricing measures whether the price looks fair for the value delivered, including packaging and renewal friction that show up in real buying cycles.
Score Composition
| Input | Weight | What it covers |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 40% | A proprietary read of what practitioners say about likes, complaints, and day-to-day use, including public review sites, forums, and private chat rooms. Paid reviews and pay-for-play sites are out of scope. |
| Product | 35% | Hands-on look at screens and workflows. |
| Pricing | 15% | Whether the price looks fair for what you get. |
| Docs & training | 10% | Docs, tutorials, and training material. |
How we balanced the evidence
The Overall Score is the simple average of the eight criteria. Recommendation language follows that score and the use-case matrix above.
Scope
ClearML is graded here as MLOps & experiment tracking. Criteria scores can move as more review volume and product checks are added.