Skip to content

Choosing an LLM vendor. The model is a setting, not a bet.

Every AI buyer asks which large language model (LLM) we use, but the better question is what it costs to change the answer. Here is how we build so the model underneath stays swappable, and what that protects.

Webaroo /

Ask Roo: How should we choose an AI model provider without getting locked in?

This post supports

RooThe Brain belongs to the company.Roo is the cockpit a company runs its AI crew from.
See Roo

The question on every first call

Early in the first call, someone asks which model we use. Behind that question is a bigger one: if we pick wrong, how much of this do we throw away?

Providers ship a new model every few months. Last year's pick can become the slower, pricier option while nothing on your side changed. Prices move. Terms move. Models get retired. If your system is wired to one model by hand, every one of those moves is a rewrite, and the rewrite lands on your budget.

So the honest answer to "which model" is short: it should matter less than you think. Here is how we build so that it does.

What is yours and what is rented

Start by splitting the system in two.

Yours: the memory of your organization, the permissions, the approval rules, the logs, the workflows, and the fixed set of real cases you test against. This is where the value lives, and it is specific to you.

Rented: the model. It is a supplier. A good one, but a supplier. Suppliers get replaced when a better one shows up. Your architecture should make that replacement boring.

Most AI builds get this backwards. The business rules go into a long prompt tuned to one model's habits. The conversation history lives inside the provider's own tools. The provider's library gets called straight from application code. Six months later the rented part owns the part that was yours, and switching means starting over.

One layer between your code and the model

Build it so every model call goes through one layer you own: a router. It takes the job and returns the answer in the shape your application already expects. The provider's name, the model version, the prompt version, and the settings live in configuration, not in code.

That one decision changes what a switch costs. A new model becomes a config change plus a test run, not a rewrite.

It also lets you route by task. A refund dispute with an angry customer gets the strongest model. Tagging ten thousand support tickets gets a cheaper tier. Each route is a setting, so when a provider cuts its price or ships a better small model, you move the routine work without a deploy.

The default model is a choice we retest, not a habit. Every candidate model runs against real cases before we adopt it. If the default gets slow, or its terms change in a way your compliance team cannot accept, the route is changed in configuration and the test set says whether the switch is safe.

We pick the model that fits the job.

The test that makes the choice reversible

An architecture that can switch is only useful if you know whether the switch worked. So keep a fixed set of your real cases, names stripped: the invoices that confused the old process, the calls that went wrong, the questions your team asks most.

That set runs against every candidate model before a switch, and again after every version or prompt change. The result is a score your team can read, not a vendor's demo. If the new model does worse on your own work, you do not switch.

That answers the fear behind the vendor question. You are not betting the company on a provider. You are betting it on a test set you own and can rerun any time.

Where Roo comes in

Roo is the cockpit a company runs its AI crew from. The crew works inside the company's own systems, under its rules. The Brain belongs to the company. From early access in February 2027, Roo runs inside every Run client.

What to ask any vendor, including us

  • Where does the model name live: in config or in code?
  • Can you show a switch, on my cases, with the score before and after?
  • What happens to my memory and history if I leave the provider?
  • Who reads the data terms before any data flows, and where is that written down?
  • What is logged on every call, and can my compliance team export it?

If a vendor cannot answer the first two in plain words, the model is not a setting. It is a dependency, and you are the one carrying it.

The playbooks behind this post

The vendor playbook covers what to test and which terms matter. The architecture playbook covers the layer itself. The paid 10-day assessment is where every engagement starts.

Roo. The Brain belongs to the company.

Roo is the cockpit a company runs its AI crew from.

Built for
The CFO, COO, or IT lead at a mid-market company that already runs, or is about to run, more than one AI agent
Time to live
Early access February 2027
How it is priced
Runs inside every Run plan from early access in February 2027
Roo is the cockpit a company runs its AI crew from.

Questions this post answers.

A config change plus a test run, not a rewrite. When the provider name, model version, prompt version, and settings live in configuration, the switch is checked against a fixed set of your own real cases before it goes live.

Every candidate model runs against real cases before we adopt it, and we pick the one that fits the job.

In a build where the model is a setting, your memory, permissions, approval rules, logs, workflows, and test cases sit on your side of the interface. Leaving a provider changes the model, and your test set shows whether the new one does the work as well.

Tell us what is costing you time. A straight answer first.

The first paid step is your AI strategy, a 10-day AI readiness assessment: AI inventory, risk tiers, the top 3 workflows with today's numbers and a 90-day plan.