OsmosisYC W25 landing page report.
← Back to YC W25
Osmosishttps://osmosis.ai/

Your landing page’s weakest score is Trust.

How Osmosis ranks

  1. 1.Fireworks AI78
  2. 2.OpenPipe76
  3. 3.Osmosis64
  4. 4.Adaptive ML64
Fix Trust
64Growth scoreupdated

category scores

Trust32Value props58CTA64Information hierarchy82Mobile web82
category scoresShowHide
Trust32Value props58CTA64Information hierarchy82Mobile web82

Score over time

9080706050Adaptive ML 61 on Apr 10 (Wayback)Adaptive ML 56 on Apr 22 (Wayback)Adaptive ML 59 on May 4 (Wayback)Adaptive ML 61 on Aug 1 (Wayback)Adaptive ML 64 on Sep 20 (Live)OpenPipe 75 on Apr 12 (Wayback)OpenPipe 76 on Apr 20 (Wayback)OpenPipe 75 on May 24 (Wayback)OpenPipe 75 on Jun 16 (Wayback)OpenPipe 76 on Jun 28 (Wayback)OpenPipe 75 on Jul 28 (Wayback)OpenPipe 76 on Jul 31 (Live)Fireworks AI 70 on Mar 24 (Wayback)Fireworks AI 73 on Apr 7 (Wayback)Fireworks AI 75 on Apr 20 (Wayback)Fireworks AI 71 on May 19 (Wayback)Fireworks AI 73 on Jun 10 (Wayback)Fireworks AI 79 on Jul 15 (Wayback)Fireworks AI 78 on Jul 28 (Live)Osmosis 64 on May 4 (Wayback)Osmosis 64 on May 17 (Wayback)Osmosis 64 on Sep 21 (Live)May 4May 17Sep 21
Past reportsShow past reportsHide past reports
  1. Sep 21, 202664LiveTrust −6 · Information hierarchy −4Viewing
  2. May 17, 202664Information hierarchy +2 · Mobile web −2View →
  3. May 4, 202664First tracked report — strongest Information hierarchy 84, weakest Trust 38View →

Trust

32Poor

Proof that the product is real, competent, and safe to try.

OpenPipe
Adaptive ML
Trust read
OsmosisNo visible trust signal identified.
Adaptive ML"Adaptive ML has been acquired by Datadog" announcement banner
OpenPipe"Trusted by top companies" logo row featuring Zapier, Y Combinator, Flow, and Method
Fireworks AIimplicit context Fireworks AI may benefit from pre-existing familiarity among its target audience.

Value props

58Fair

Title, subtitle, hero — do they sell the product's true value?

Osmosis’s headline undersellsForward Deployed Reinforcement LearningOsmosis helps companies create task-specific models that beat foundation models at a fraction of the cost.

Working

  • Subhead names a real outcome
  • Cost advantage is stated
  • Clear who it's for: companies

Could improve

  • H1 is jargon, not a benefit
  • No numbers or proof points
  • Hero image decorates, not demos

CTA

64Fair

Copy, size, verb, cost-feel — does the primary CTA earn the click?

Osmosis
OpenPipe

Problems

  • high-commitment sales-call framing
  • small, low-contrast hero button
  • no low-friction secondary path
  • no payoff stated near the CTA

Information hierarchy

82Strong

Does the design help or inhibit what the page is trying to say?

Information hierarchy annotations on the desktop capture123
  1. Hero BOOK A DEMO — Small ghost button with pale blue text on a light fill — the primary action has the weakest visual weight in the fold.
  2. Nav BOOK A DEMO — Same-label outlined button duplicates the hero CTA at equal quietness, splitting the single action across two targets.
  3. Subheadline text — Muted gray copy over the misty background drops contrast on the value explanation compared to the headline.

Mobile web

82Strong

The phone experience as a first-class citizen.

Mobile web annotations on the mobile capture1
  1. BOOK A DEMO button — Desktop-sized pill, not full-width; pale fill and thin blue text underplay the primary action.

Competitors

inferred from product, audience, and value prop
#1Fireworks AIfireworks.ai78 #2OpenPipeopenpipe.ai76
#3Osmosis64
#4Adaptive MLadaptive-ml.com64—Predibasepredibase.comfailed