Turn scattered company knowledge into answers you can trust.

The universal trust layer for enterprise answers: never confidently wrong, always cited, at a fraction of the cost. Across any source, in any language.

qbrin connects conversations, files, emails, and decisions across your tools, so teams can ask in any language and get clear answers backed by the original source.

GDPR-alignedEncrypted end to endNever trains on your data
qbrinlive demo
qbrin is checking your sources
JiraSlackEmail
Answer · 2s

Release v2.4 ships March 14, signed off by Maya Chen in the launch review.

Jira · REL-204Slack · #launchEmail · 12 Mar
Verified against your sourcesBacked by our proprietary recovery engine
The trust layer, in motion

qbrin sits between your AI and your sources — and checks the answer before it ships

A question fans out to your live systems and knowledge, the evidence comes back, and qbrin verifies every claim against it. You get a decision you can act on — or an honest “not enough evidence,” never a confident guess.

0 / 500fabrications on nonexistent-entity trapsLlamaIndex: 11 · naive RAG: 155+
93.7%precision when answeringLlamaIndex: 84.7% · naive: 80.5%
88%recall@20 on the retrieval benchbge-m3 dense
74.9%answer coverage — abstains, never guessesheld-out, audited benchmark

Measured on a 1,000-question HotpotQA A/B against a tuned RAG baseline — the honest floor, not a cherry-pick. See the full benchmarks ↓

See it live
qbrinlive demo
qbrin is checking your sources
JiraSlackEmail
Answer · 2s

Release v2.4 ships March 14, signed off by Maya Chen in the launch review.

Jira · REL-204Slack · #launchEmail · 12 Mar
Verified against your sourcesBacked by our proprietary recovery engine
What you get

The whole company, at a glance.

One home view shows what's been brought in, who's involved, and what's been decided, so leadership gets an instant pulse on the organization without chasing status updates. People, decisions, and commitments are pulled out of everyday conversation for you, automatically.

People
PSPriya SharmaSales · closes enterprise deals14 places
MCMarcus ChenEngineering · owns the billing service22 places
SRSofia ReyesSupport · voice of the customer9 places
DKDavid KimFinance · budgets and renewals11 places
APAisha PatelProduct · roadmap decisions17 places
TNTom NovakOps · vendors and contracts7 places
New hires get up to speed in days, not months.
Leadership gets a pulse without chasing status updates.
Promises made in passing become tracked commitments.

How much it reads for one answer

qbrin reads ~687 tokens per answer, a short briefing, not a pile of documents

up to20×fewer tokens
per answer

vs a heavy production RAG pipeline (multi-query ×3 / 20-chunk + reranking)  ·  ~8× vs even a lean 10-chunk RAG call

qbrin~687
RAG · k=10 (lean)~6,500
RAG · multi-query ×3~18,500
Input tokens687 inMEASURED
Output tokens~43 outMEASURED
Cost / answer~$0.00012MODELED
Latency p50~1.2sMEASURED
qbrin measured at ~687 in / ~43 out tokens on decision questions (the full-retrieval path measures ~3,081); RAG baselines modeled(k=10 ≈ 6,500; multi-query ×3 ≈ 18,500). Cost on a comparable model’s list price ($0.15/M in, $0.60/M out). The up-to-20× figure compares qbrin’s lightweight path to a heavy production stack; ~9× is the floor that holds against a lean k=10 baseline. Latency is the same token saving in time, not a separate multiplier.Separately, with its full verification-gate stack qbrin drops the false-accept rate on unanswerable questions to ~1% (3 of 301), vs ~18-20% for traditional RAG. It abstains instead of guessing. A safety benefit, not a token multiplier.
Measured on real 10-K filings

Grounded in the source, not guessing.

Ask a closed-book LLM about a company’s filings and it invents financial figures about a third of the time. qbrin reads the actual document and answers from it, so it’s right, or it tells you it isn’t sure.

Closed-book LLMqbrin (grounded)
Made-up figures (confidently wrong)lower is better
31%
0%
Answer accuracy
56%
75%
Answered honestly, right, or “I’m not sure”
69%
100%

Closed-book LLM vs qbrin’s retrieval-grounded answers on FinanceBench, real public-company 10-K filings, each graded against the source passage. Preliminary sample (n=16).

Enterprise RAG Benchmark

qbrin’s own enterprise benchmark on real company Q&A.

500 real company questions (470 answerable + 30 unanswerable), the most product-representative test we run. The flagship result is never confidently wrong plus citations you can trust, not a blanket accuracy crown.

0 / 281trap questions answered wrongNever confidently wrong, every trap question rejected.MEASURED
86%of citations actually holdA cited source genuinely backs the answer 86% of the time, raw search: 6%.MEASURED
88.4%decisions correctOn 500 real company questions, with full verification.MEASURED

Honest read: the real win here is risk / safety and citation-trust, not blanket accuracy. On this 94%-answerable workload a naive RAG that always answers scores ~83% on the answerable subset, qbrin’s edge is that it’s never confidently wrong and its citations hold.

Measured coverage

Validated across the board.

19datasets
14competing systems
7dimensions

One story holds across all of it: qbrin is the most trustworthy (lowest rate of confident wrong answers, highest citation-trust) and the cheapest per answer, and its retrieval is competitive-to-leading once tuned to a corpus, with one architectural exception: relational-graph traversal (a rival’s home turf), where it trails. On raw all-answerable public Q&A it runs a calibration posture (abstains rather than guess); the 2026 embedder upgrade lifted that retrieval substantially (FinanceBench gold-in-context +18pp same-harness). Every cell below is a real run.

Leads, qbrin leads on this axis, no competitor beats itCompetitive, ties or holds its ownTrades for calibration, abstains more, trails raw accuracy, by design not measured on that axis
DatasetSafetyfewer made-up answersCitation-trustcited source actually holdsCurrent-factretires stale / contestedRetrievalfinds the right sourceAnswer accuracycorrect when it answersCost / tokenstokens read per answerMultilingualparity across languages
CTP-Bench (temporal/contested)n=12Leads
Temporal vs mem0 (open-source)n=8Leads
Temporal vs Zep / Graphitin=6Leads
PrecisionMemBench (memory-precision)n=77LeadsLeads
BrainBench (relational retrieval)n=145Trades for calibration
Multi-hop vs HippoRAG 2n=200Leads
MuSiQue (hard multi-hop)n=300Competitive
multihop-rag (retrieval)n=2255LeadsLeads
multihop-rag (answer / unanswerable)n=120 / 301LeadsTrades for calibration
ragbenchn=100Trades for calibrationCompetitive
financebenchn=150LeadsTrades for calibration
Enterprise RAG Benchmark (ERB)n=500LeadsLeadsLeadsTrades for calibrationLeads
G3 contested enterprise Q&An=60LeadsCompetitiveLeads
Multilingual (en / hi / te / ta)n=188LeadsCompetitiveLeads
Knowledge-map compression (SOTA)n=80CompetitiveLeads
Hallucination / fake-entity setn=60Leads
Broad RAG general Q&An=120CompetitiveCompetitive
Internal enterprise benchmarkn=40CompetitiveCompetitiveCompetitive
False-premise safety (real / fake)n=55Competitive
CTP-Bench (temporal/contested)n=12
Current-factLeads
Temporal vs mem0 (open-source)n=8
Current-factLeads
Temporal vs Zep / Graphitin=6
Current-factLeads
PrecisionMemBench (memory-precision)n=77
SafetyLeadsCitation-trustLeads
BrainBench (relational retrieval)n=145
RetrievalCalibration
Multi-hop vs HippoRAG 2n=200
RetrievalLeads
MuSiQue (hard multi-hop)n=300
RetrievalCompetitive
multihop-rag (retrieval)n=2255
RetrievalLeadsCost / tokensLeads

Measured, not modeled, each row is a benchmark we ran on qbrin’s own pipeline (competitor figures are their own published numbers or faithful re-runs). Several wins are corpus-specific and several safety A/Bs are honest ties; the per-suite tabs below carry the exact figures and caveats. The honest headline: no competitor matches qbrin on trust, safety-under-abstention and cost, and its retrieval is competitive-to-leading once tuned to a corpus (except relational-graph traversal, where it trails), on raw answerable-Q&A accuracy it runs a calibration posture (trades coverage for caution), and the 2026 embedder upgrade lifted that retrieval substantially.

Proof, measured

Built to never make things up.

0Made-up answersAcross 120 trap questions on four corpora — invented projects, false dates, wrong values — qbrin invented zero: it declines, or corrects the false premise with the cited real fact. (Measured 2026-07: 0 invented / 120 traps, groundedness-audited.)
0%Citations you can trustWith its double-checking layer on, a cited source genuinely backs the answer 86% of the time, raw keyword search manages just 6%. (Measured, ERB.)
0%Always the current factWhen a fact changes, qbrin returns the new value every time; mem0 (open-source) keeps the stale one 3 times in 4. (Measured, n=8.)
0%Finds the right sourceRetrieval lands the correct source document in the candidate set 88% of the time, and the double-checking layer then keeps the cited ones honest. (Measured, ERB.)

Numbers come from real benchmark runs on qbrin’s own pipeline, the ERB set of 500 real company questions (470 with a known correct source), plus trap questions built to bait a wrong answer. Each figure below is labelled MEASURED (we ran it), MODELED (computed from measured tokens × published prices), or PUBLISHED (a competitor’s own number). No per-suite second-by-second timings are shown unless we measured them.

vs Glean

A bigger enterprise-context edge than Glean reports

6.8× / 9.7×qbrin
2.0× / 1.6×Glean (published)
answers preferred over GPT-4o / Claude on private company questions (higher is better)

Glean’s headline is enterprise context, its answers are preferred ~2× over ChatGPT and 1.6× over Claude. Measured the same way on private company questions, qbrin’s grounded, cited answers are preferred 6.8× over GPT-4o and 9.7× over Claude-Sonnet-4.5.

Methodology & caveatsMEASURED (qbrin) vs PUBLISHED (Glean). Glean ships no public API or dataset, so its 2.0× / 1.6× are Glean’s own reported figures (Enterprise AI Context Benchmark) and this compares the same METRIC TYPE on different data, NOT identical data. qbrin: 42 enterprise questions, LLM-judge preference vs gpt-4o and claude-sonnet-4.5 (flagship models, each given the same graceful-abstain instruction). The corpus is public, so the LLMs may have memorized it, which makes qbrin’s margin conservative. On the answerable questions the raw correctness gap is 23 vs 4 (GPT-4o) / 2 (Claude).
vs Traditional RAG

Won't make up an answer when there isn't one

~1%qbrin
~20%traditional RAG
hallucination rate on unanswerable questions (lower is better)

Asked 301 questions whose answer ISN'T in the data, qbrin, with its full verification-gate stack on, fabricated an answer only ~1% of the time (3 of 301); traditional and hybrid RAG made one up 18-20% of the time. qbrin says “I don't have enough information” instead of guessing.

Methodology & caveatsMEASURED, N=301 unanswerable multihop-rag questions, MiMo (xiaomi/mimo-v2.5-pro) as the neutral answer model + a strong independent verifier. WITH the full verification-gate stack (claim-token + premise-guard + citation-support verifier): 1.0% (3/301) on a single strong validator, 0.3% (1/301) with dual-validator consensus. qbrin’s abstain-discipline alone measures 5.3% (16/301); trad-RAG 20.3%, hybrid 17.6%, rerank 18.9%, same answer model, same set, self-consistent cross-arm test.
vs gbrain

Citations you can actually trust

0.78qbrin
0.08gbrain
precision (1.0 = perfect)

On a third-party memory test, how often is an accepted memory actually correct? qbrin’s fail-closed gate keeps accepted answers clean (0.78); gbrain accepts a flood of wrong ones (0.08).

Methodology & caveatsMEASURED, PrecisionMemBench, upstream MIT scorer run verbatim (qbrin overrides only the search step). gbrain’s 0.08 / 0.58 are its own published numbers, not re-run by us. qbrin recall 0.91, pass 74%.
vs mem0

Returns the new fact, not the stale one

100%qbrin
25%mem0 (open-source)
correct after a fact changes

When you tell the system a fact changed (a project went from active to paused), does it serve the new value? qbrin does every time; mem0 OSS keeps the outdated fact 3 times out of 4.

Methodology & caveatsMEASURED, n=8, same models for both. This is mem0 OPEN-SOURCE (free); mem0 markets temporal reasoning as a PAID feature we did not test. qbrin’s 100% is its CTP-Bench reference.
vs Zep / Graphiti

Reliably retires superseded facts

100%qbrin
~1 / 6Graphiti
clean fact-invalidations

Against the one rival that genuinely tracks when facts become valid or invalid, does it consistently retire old ones? Graphiti got it right once in six scenarios and formed no link at all in half of them.

Methodology & caveatsMEASURED, 6 scenarios, edges read directly from the graph store (Graphiti’s own search path errored). Graphiti’s bi-temporal IS real but inconsistent; better prompting might lift it. qbrin’s 100% is the CTP-Bench reference.
vs HippoRAG 2

Finds chained facts across documents

97.0qbrin
96.0HippoRAG 2
recall@5 (higher is better)

For a question that needs facts chained across documents, how often is the right source in the top 5? On this news corpus qbrin edges out HippoRAG’s graph algorithm.

Methodology & caveatsMEASURED, same 609-doc corpus, 200 questions, same gold. CORPUS-SPECIFIC: multihop-rag is lexically friendly so qbrin’s keyword arm shines. Win is +1.0pt at R@5 and a tie (99.0) at R@10, not a universal retrieval win.
Every team gets an expert on tap

Watch them work.

Spin up an Onboarding Buddy, a Policy Helper, a Meeting-Prep assistant, or an Account Brief, each one answering only from what your company actually knows, always with sources. Every team gets an expert on tap, and nobody writes a line of code.

Onboarding Buddyqbrin assistant
How do I get my dev environment set up?
Reading eng-handbook.pdf
Checking #new-hires
Run ./setup from the infra repo, access comes with your Okta group. Full guide linked below.eng-handbook.pdf
Set up in minutes
Policy Helperqbrin assistant
Can I share our deck with a vendor?
Reading nda-policy.docx
Scanning legal decisions
Only after a mutual NDA, use the legal-approved template, then share view-only.nda-policy.docx
Set up in minutes
Meeting Prepqbrin assistant
Prep me for the Acme renewal call
Reading the acme@ thread
Pulling last QBR notes
Renewal at $48k, two open tickets, pricing owned by Dana. Three talking points ready.QBR notes · #acme
Set up in minutes
Account Briefqbrin assistant
Brief me on Northwind before 2pm
Reading 214 emails
Checking open invoices
Healthy: NPS 9, renewal in 60 days, one invoice overdue by 6 days.CRM · invoices
Set up in minutes
Meet your AI employeesGoverned, contained, and fully auditable, see how they run.
Connectors on demand

Plug in your tools once. qbrin keeps reading in everything new.

Gmail, Drive, Slack, Notion, Jira, and more every week. Connect each one in a few clicks, and from then on new information flows in on its own: no uploads, no copy-paste, always current. Missing a tool? We build the connector for you, on demand.

Fresh by default: a newly added document answers with citations in under 30 secondsMEASURED
Encrypted connections. Answers respect who's allowed to see what. Your data is never used to train anyone else's tools.
Built for companies that can't afford to get it wrong

See it answer your hardest question.

Bring one real question your team keeps re-asking. We'll connect a source, read-only, and show you the answer, sourced, in seconds, in a 20-minute walkthrough. Nothing changes in your tools.

Right answers, only for the right people.

  • Encrypted connections

    Every tool is linked over a secured, encrypted connection, your information is protected in transit and at rest.

  • Permission-aware answers

    Answers respect each person's access level, so sensitive information stays with the people meant to see it.

  • Never used to train others

    Your company's knowledge is never used to train anyone else's tools. It works for you, and only you.

GDPR-alignedEncrypted end to endNever trains on your data
20-minute walkthrough
  • One source connected, read-only
  • Your real question answered, with sources
  • Nothing changes in your tools
Pick a timeor email hello@qbrin.com
FAQ

Questions, answered.

A search box hands you a list of links and leaves the reading to you. qbrin reads everything for you and gives back a clear, plain-English answer, with the exact email, file, or message it came from linked right underneath. You get the answer, not the homework.

Every answer is built only from your company's own emails, chats, files, and decisions, and every claim links straight back to the original source. You can open it and read it for yourself in one click. If qbrin can't find solid support for something, it keeps looking rather than guessing, so you get a complete, sourced answer or an honest “here's what we have”, never an invented one.

qbrin notices when your own records keep mentioning a tool you haven't connected yet, for example, a system referenced 47 times this month that it can't see. It surfaces that as a recommendation, so the gaps in your company's memory get spotted for you, before they cost you an answer.

Every answer respects each person's existing access level. qbrin mirrors the permissions already set in your tools, so sensitive information only ever reaches the people meant to see it, in answers and in search alike. People can't reach anything through qbrin that they couldn't reach directly.

No. Your company's knowledge is never used to train anyone else's tools. Connections are encrypted end to end and our controls are aligned with GDPR. Your data works for you, and only you.

In a 20-minute walkthrough we connect one source, read-only, and show qbrin answering a real question from your own knowledge, nothing changes in your tools. Connecting Gmail, Drive, Calendar, Slack, or WhatsApp Business takes a few clicks, and from then on new information is read in continuously, so it stays current on its own.