AI in Production: The 2026 Benchmark Report
AI in Production: The 2026 Benchmark Report
How engineering teams are building, breaking, and scaling AI in production.
We surveyed 130 backend, full-stack, and AI engineers about what it takes to run reliable AI workflows in production. We wanted to know what's causing failures, and which infrastructure choices—across orchestration, observability, evals, and agent frameworks—actually reduce the burden of reliability.
Explore the patterns that predict scaling confidence.
With participation from engineers at









Download your free copy today.
Key findings — preview
What 130 engineers told us about running AI in production.
A preview of what's inside. We wanted to know what's causing failures, and which infrastructure choices — across orchestration, observability, evals, and agent frameworks — actually reduce the burden of reliability. Download our full report to go deeper with team-size breakouts, complete charts, and the statistical significance behind every finding.
01 — The confidence paradox
Only 19% of teams running AI in production are very confident their stack can handle 2–3x scale.
At organizations with 500+ engineers and significantly more resources, that number drops to 0%. Our report explains why.
— 010Engineers surveyed— 020%Had incidents in last 90 days— 030%Had confidence at scale02 — The observability gap
Observability is the #1 unsolved problem engineers named in the survey.
Even respondents using a mix of third-party and homegrown solutions are spending hours diagnosing failures. The report shows which observability approaches actually correlate with faster recovery.
Observability & debuggingAgent state & durabilityNon-determinismScale, infra & costTooling fragmentationEvals & output qualityTesting & integrationUnclear / N/AUp to 10n=4791227343711–50n=408745632551–500n=2710363311500+n=164272119% of responses name observability as the core unsolved problem — the highest of any theme, and equal across AI (18%) and non-AI (21%) teams.
03 — The reliability tax
20% of AI teams spend up to half their engineering time on reliability work.
That's twice the rate of non-AI teams. And for most, the burden is growing. Our report identifies which orchestration approaches correlate with lower — and higher — reliability burden.
AI in productionNo AI in productionAI teams are twice as likely to be in the 26–50% band (20% vs. 10%). Non-AI teams are more likely to be lean — 43% spending less than 10% vs. 32% of AI teams.
04 — What separates confident teams
Three infrastructure layers separate confident AI teams from the rest.
What separates the most confident AI teams isn't bigger budgets or bigger teams — it's tighter integration between three infrastructure layers: orchestration that persists state and handles failures, observability that lives inside the workflow, and evals connected to where things actually break. When those layers share context, confidence follows.
Strongest positive combinations
Durable execution + using evals + report declining reliability overhead
Durable execution + using orchestration platform for observability + report declining reliability overhead
Durable execution + using evals
Using evals + report under an hour to debug
Durable execution + report under an hour to debug
Using orchestration platform for observability + report under an hour to debug
The full report breaks down these combinations by team size with complete chart data and statistical significance.
Free PDF
Get the full report.
Charts, breakouts by team size, and the patterns that predict scaling confidence — free PDF, instant access.
Methodology
How we ran this survey.
130 backend, full-stack, and AI engineers and engineering leaders across companies of every size — from solopreneurs to organizations with 1,000+ engineers. All respondents were required to be running asynchronous workflows in production.
The survey covered orchestration, observability, evals, agent frameworks, and scaling confidence.
