Skip to content

AI Spend reports

AI spend behaves unlike anything else on your bill. It’s consumption-based with no capacity to rightsize, the unit price changes when someone switches model, and a single badly-written prompt loop can cost more than a server. It gets its own reports for that reason.

ViewAnswers
AI SpendWhat are we spending, by provider — tokens, seats and compute together
AI Spend by ModelWhich models, with the input/output mix and blended unit cost
AI Spend by ApplicationWhich application, team and cost group the spend belongs to
Token Spend & ForecastWhere the month lands, against budget
Cost per 1K / 1M TokensThe unit rate over time, and the cache-hit rate driving it

Cost per 1K / 1M tokens is the AI equivalent of unit economics. Total AI spend going up while cost per million tokens goes down means you’re getting more work done more efficiently — a good month that looks like a bad one on the total alone.

Cache-hit rate is the biggest lever on that rate, which is why it sits on the same view.

So: treat the cost figures as real and the fine-grained token metrics as directional unless the screen tells you otherwise. Full detail on what isn’t available yet.

Period, provider, cost group and cost basis all apply — the AI vendors are billing providers like any other, so the provider chip genuinely slices these views.

Virtual tags don’t: token telemetry carries no resource tags, and the chip says so.

This report is about cost. The adoption question — who’s using which tool, and are the seats worth it — is on AI tool adoption, and the optimization suggestions are on TokenMaxing.