| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Paid |
| Capabilities | 13 decomposed | 14 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Accepts free-form text input of available kitchen ingredients and generates 10 recipe suggestions via an undisclosed LLM backend (model identity unknown). The system tokenizes ingredient lists without requiring structured schema, sends them to the AI model with an implicit culinary context prompt, and returns recipe names with instructions. No preprocessing for ingredient normalization, quantity parsing, or dietary constraint filtering is applied — recipes are generated as-is from raw ingredient text.
Unique: Operates as a pure pay-per-use transaction model ($1.50 per 10 recipes) with zero free tier output, differentiating from freemium competitors (ChatGPT free tier, AllRecipes free tier) by enforcing immediate monetization before any recipe delivery. No account creation, session persistence, or dietary filtering — each request is stateless and independent.
vs alternatives: Faster time-to-first-recipe than manual Google search and simpler UX than recipe apps requiring account setup, but significantly more expensive than ChatGPT ($20/month unlimited) or free recipe sites for frequent users, and lacks nutritional data and dietary filtering that health-conscious users expect.
Accepts ingredient lists in languages other than English and processes them through the same LLM pipeline, with documented quality degradation for non-English inputs. The system does not perform explicit language detection, translation, or normalization — it passes raw text directly to the underlying model, relying on the model's multilingual capabilities. Product documentation states 'English for best results, but other languages work too' without specifying supported languages, translation mechanisms, or performance metrics.
Unique: Explicitly supports non-English input without requiring translation, but provides no language detection, quality assurance, or supported language list — a permissive but undocumented approach that relies entirely on the underlying LLM's multilingual capabilities without additional preprocessing or validation layers.
vs alternatives: More inclusive than English-only recipe tools, but less reliable than competitors with explicit language support, translation APIs, or regional ingredient databases (e.g., Yummly's multi-language support with localized ingredient databases).
Powers recipe generation using an undisclosed LLM backend where the model name, version, provider, and training data are not publicly documented. The system does not specify whether it uses GPT-4, Claude, open-source models (Llama, Mistral), or proprietary models. Users cannot verify model capabilities, hallucination rates, training data recency, or safety measures — the entire AI infrastructure is a black box.
Unique: Maintains complete opacity around the underlying LLM, providing no documentation of model identity, version, provider, or capabilities. This is a deliberate business decision to protect proprietary infrastructure but creates significant transparency and trust gaps.
vs alternatives: Protects proprietary infrastructure and reduces competitive pressure (competitors cannot replicate the exact model), but significantly less transparent than ChatGPT (uses GPT-4 or GPT-3.5), Claude (uses Claude 3), or open-source tools (Llama, Mistral) where users know exactly what model they're using and can evaluate its capabilities.
Requires manual text input of ingredients with no real-time inventory tracking, barcode scanning, smart pantry integration, or IoT device connectivity. Users must manually type or paste ingredient lists without any automated detection of what's actually in their kitchen. The system does not integrate with smart refrigerators, pantry cameras, grocery delivery apps, or inventory management systems.
Unique: Relies entirely on manual text input with no automation, barcode scanning, smart home integration, or inventory tracking. This minimizes technical complexity and infrastructure requirements but creates significant friction for users wanting automated pantry management.
vs alternatives: Simpler to implement and use than smart pantry systems (no IoT setup required), but significantly less convenient than competitors with barcode scanning (Paprika, Mealime), smart fridge integration (Samsung SmartThings), or grocery app sync (Instacart recipe integration).
Generates recipes without accepting cuisine type, cooking method, difficulty level, or dietary preference parameters. The system does not provide input fields for 'Italian only', 'quick weeknight meals', 'slow cooker recipes', or 'beginner-friendly' — recipes are generated based solely on ingredient availability with no preference filtering. Users cannot specify cuisine, cooking style, or complexity constraints.
Unique: Eliminates all preference-based filtering, generating recipes based solely on ingredient availability without cuisine, cooking method, difficulty, or dietary style parameters. This simplifies the input schema but removes user control over recipe characteristics.
vs alternatives: Simpler UX than recipe apps with extensive filtering (Yummly, AllRecipes, BigOven), but significantly less useful for users wanting to specify cuisine, cooking method, or difficulty level. Competitors provide dropdown menus and checkboxes for these preferences.
Generates exactly 10 recipes per transaction in a single batch request, rather than streaming or paginating results. The system bundles the ingredient list into a single prompt, sends it to the LLM, and returns all 10 recipes at once. No pagination, filtering, or refinement options are available — users receive a fixed set of 10 suggestions regardless of ingredient list complexity or recipe diversity.
Unique: Enforces a fixed batch size of exactly 10 recipes per transaction with no customization, pagination, or filtering options — a rigid, transaction-based model that maximizes per-request value but eliminates user control over output quantity or diversity.
vs alternatives: Simpler UX than recipe apps with pagination and filtering (AllRecipes, Tasty), but less flexible than ChatGPT or Claude where users can request 'just 3 simple recipes' or refine results iteratively without additional cost.
Implements a micropayment model where each recipe generation request triggers a $1.50 charge via an integrated payment processor (identity unknown — likely Stripe or PayPal). The system does not offer subscriptions, free tiers with output, or usage limits — every request to generate recipes requires immediate payment. Payment failures are documented as a known issue requiring manual support intervention (hello@yougotcooking.com).
Unique: Enforces strict pay-per-use micropayments ($1.50 per 10 recipes) with zero free output tier and no subscription option, creating immediate monetization friction before any value delivery. This contrasts sharply with freemium competitors (ChatGPT, AllRecipes) that offer free tiers with limited output or subscriptions that reduce per-use cost.
vs alternatives: Cheaper for one-off use cases ($1.50 vs. $20/month ChatGPT subscription), but significantly more expensive for frequent users (daily use = $45/month vs. $20/month ChatGPT), and payment failure handling is manual rather than automated, creating support burden.
Generates recipes without accepting, processing, or filtering for dietary restrictions, allergies, intolerances, or food preferences. The system does not provide input fields or parameters for vegan, keto, gluten-free, nut-free, or other dietary specifications — recipes are generated based solely on ingredient availability. Product documentation explicitly acknowledges this limitation: no mention of dietary filtering in feature list or UI.
Unique: Deliberately omits dietary constraint input and filtering, treating all recipes as equally valid regardless of allergen content or dietary compatibility. This simplifies the UX and reduces prompt complexity but creates safety and usability gaps for health-conscious or allergy-prone users.
vs alternatives: Simpler UX than recipe apps with dietary filtering (Yummly, BigOven, MyFitnessPal), but significantly less safe for users with allergies or dietary restrictions, and less useful for health-conscious users seeking nutritional data or macro-aligned recipes.
+5 more capabilities
Automatically loads and parses documents from diverse sources (PDFs, Word docs, HTML, Markdown, code files, databases) into a unified in-memory representation using format-specific loaders and node-based document abstractions. Each document is decomposed into Document objects containing metadata, content, and relationships, enabling downstream processing without format-specific handling in application code.
Unique: Provides a unified loader abstraction (BaseReader interface) that normalizes 100+ data source connectors into a single Document/Node API, eliminating format-specific branching logic in application code. Loaders are composable and chainable, allowing sequential transformations (e.g., load → split → extract metadata → embed).
vs alternatives: Broader out-of-the-box loader coverage than LangChain's document loaders and more structured node-based decomposition than raw text splitting, reducing boilerplate for multi-source RAG pipelines.
Splits documents into semantically coherent chunks using multiple strategies (character-based, token-aware, recursive, semantic) with configurable overlap and chunk size. Preserves document hierarchy and metadata through a node tree structure, enabling retrieval systems to maintain context relationships and enable hierarchical re-ranking or parent-document retrieval patterns.
Unique: Implements a node-tree abstraction that preserves document hierarchy and enables parent-document retrieval patterns. Supports multiple splitting strategies (recursive, semantic, code-aware) with pluggable custom splitters, and automatically propagates metadata through the node tree.
vs alternatives: More sophisticated than LangChain's text splitters because it preserves hierarchical relationships and supports semantic splitting; better for complex document structures than simple character-based splitting.
You Got Cooking scores higher at 42/100 vs LlamaIndex at 40/100. You Got Cooking also has a free tier, making it more accessible.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Processes documents containing mixed content (text, images, tables, code) by extracting and understanding each modality separately, then synthesizing information across modalities. Uses vision models for image understanding, specialized parsers for tables and code, and integrates results into a unified document representation for retrieval and generation.
Unique: Integrates vision models, table parsers, and code extractors into a unified multi-modal document processing pipeline that synthesizes information across modalities. Preserves modality-specific structure (table schemas, code formatting) while enabling cross-modal retrieval and generation.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive multi-modal support than text-only RAG; built-in vision integration reduces boilerplate for document understanding compared to manual vision API calls.
Enables streaming of LLM responses token-by-token and real-time retrieval updates, allowing applications to display partial results as they become available. Supports streaming from retrieval (progressive document discovery) and generation (token-by-token output) with backpressure handling and cancellation support for responsive user experiences.
Unique: Provides first-class streaming support for both retrieval and generation with automatic backpressure handling and cancellation. Enables progressive result display without custom async/streaming code in application layer.
vs alternatives: More integrated streaming support than manual LLM API streaming; built-in retrieval streaming and backpressure handling reduce complexity compared to custom streaming implementations.
Tracks API costs for LLM calls, embeddings, and other operations with per-query and per-session cost attribution. Provides cost optimization recommendations (e.g., batch processing, model selection, caching) and enables cost-aware query planning to balance quality and expense. Integrates with multiple LLM providers to normalize cost tracking across models.
Unique: Provides automatic cost tracking across multiple LLM providers with per-query attribution and cost optimization recommendations. Integrates with query execution to enable cost-aware planning without manual cost calculation.
vs alternatives: More integrated cost tracking than manual API billing review; built-in optimization recommendations reduce guesswork for cost reduction.
Enables building custom RAG pipelines by composing modular components (retrievers, synthesizers, agents, tools) through a declarative or programmatic API. Supports complex workflows with branching, loops, and conditional logic, with automatic dependency resolution and execution optimization. Pipelines are reusable, testable, and can be deployed as APIs or batch jobs.
Unique: Provides a flexible pipeline composition API supporting both declarative and programmatic definitions, with automatic dependency resolution and execution optimization. Enables complex workflows with branching and conditional logic without custom orchestration code.
vs alternatives: More flexible pipeline composition than fixed RAG architectures; better workflow support than manual component chaining.
Generates embeddings for documents/nodes using pluggable embedding providers (OpenAI, Hugging Face, local models) and stores them in a unified vector store interface that abstracts over multiple backends (Pinecone, Weaviate, Milvus, FAISS, Chroma, etc.). The abstraction layer enables switching vector stores without changing application code, and handles batching, retry logic, and metadata indexing.
Unique: Provides a unified VectorStore interface that abstracts 10+ vector database backends, enabling zero-code switching between providers. Handles embedding batching, retry logic, and metadata propagation automatically. Supports both cloud and local embedding models through a pluggable EmbedModel interface.
vs alternatives: Broader vector store coverage and more seamless provider switching than LangChain's vectorstore integrations; better abstraction consistency across backends than using raw vector store SDKs directly.
Retrieves semantically similar documents from vector stores using embedding-based similarity search, with optional re-ranking, filtering, and fusion strategies (hybrid search combining dense and sparse retrieval). Supports multiple retrieval modes (similarity, MMR, fusion) and enables custom retrieval logic through a pluggable Retriever interface that can combine multiple strategies.
Unique: Implements a pluggable Retriever abstraction supporting multiple retrieval strategies (similarity, MMR, fusion, custom) that can be composed and chained. Built-in support for re-ranking via LLM or cross-encoder, and hybrid search combining dense and sparse retrieval without custom integration code.
vs alternatives: More flexible retrieval composition than LangChain's retrievers; built-in re-ranking and fusion strategies reduce boilerplate for advanced retrieval pipelines.
+6 more capabilities