Compare

Not another cache. A different layer.

The serving stack already has good optimisations. AIe doesn't replace them — it adds the one property none of them have: persistent, verified reuse.

Prefix / KV cachingSemantic cachingSpeculative decodingQuantisationNavyra AIe
Exact-request reuseprefix only<1 ms path
Similar-request reuseverified
Exact output fidelitythreshold decidesapproximateverified
Persistent memoryevicts under loadgrows with use
Cross-session
Survives restart89.5% warm
Reduces full forward computationprefill onlyon hitslatency, not computeper-op costskipped or shortened
Additive to the otherscompetes with AIebuilt to stack

Benchmarked against vLLM 0.23 with its prefix and KV caching already enabled — AIe's measured gains are on top of a well-configured engine, not instead of one.

The strategic point

Use them together.

Quantisation makes each operation cheaper. Speculative decoding makes each token faster. Prefix caching reuses the prompt you just processed. AIe sits above all three and reuses the work itself — across requests, sessions, and restarts. It is the only layer in the stack that gets better the longer you run it.

Navyra AIepersistent, verified reuse — across requests and time
Prefix / KV cachingreuse within and between adjacent requests
Speculative decodingfaster token generation
Quantisationcheaper arithmetic
Your engine & GPUsvLLM · NVIDIA
Try it

Watch the difference happen.

Four situations, measured numbers. Bar length is time to answer, drawn to a single linear scale across all four situations.

Per-request times are the measured medians from the Evidence page (Mistral-7B, H100, vLLM 0.23, prefix caching on). "Threshold cache" is the standard behaviour of similarity-threshold caching, not a named product.

Capacity — illustrative

Same GPU. Same hour. How many more answers?

Set the traffic mix and see the effect on throughput. Per-request times are measured; the mix is an assumption you control — your real mix is what the free profiler reports.

presets:
Exact repeats15%
Similar requests25%
Novel requests
everything else — full computation, ~1% overhead
60%
Engine alonerequests answered per GPU-hour
With AIesame GPU, same hour
Illustrative estimate, not a measurement: computed from measured per-request medians (2,939 ms novel ×1.01 overhead · 214 ms similar · 0.8 ms exact) under the mix set above, single stream. *The 15% exact-repeat preset reflects the rate measured on a 50k-request public consumer-chat corpus; similar-request share there is an assumption. Real deployments batch requests, which changes absolute numbers; the ratio is the honest takeaway.
The failure mode we refuse

Where thresholds break, and AIe doesn't.

Q1: "What is the limitation period for a claim in contract?"
Q2: "What is the limitation period for a claim in defamation?"

→ Nearly identical wording.
→ Completely different answers — six years versus one.

A semantic cache sees two sentences 97% alike and serves the stored answer — confidently, silently, wrongly. AIe holds the same stored work — and verifies before anything is returned. Where the questions truly differ, it computes. That distinction is invisible in a benchmark and decisive in production — anywhere a wrong answer costs more than a slow one.

If your traffic doesn't resemble itself, we'll tell you.

The gain scales with reuse opportunity — and most production traffic resembles itself far more than teams expect. The free profiler measures yours, semantically, before you deploy anything. If the number is small, the report says so.