How I Cut My AI App Costs by 52% Without Changing a Single Line of Code

Source: Dev.to

The Problem: Zero Visibility Into What Was Actually Expensive

• Stack: Next.js frontend → Node backend → direct OpenAI chat/completions calls.
• Pain point: I could see the total OpenAI bill and request counts, but I had no idea which features were driving the cost.
  • Was it email summarization?
  • Suggested‑response generation?
  • Sentiment analysis on every message?

Without per‑feature cost data I couldn’t prioritize optimizations.

---

What I Tried First (That Didn’t Work)

---

Then I Found Bifrost

I was looking for an LLM observability tool and kept seeing Bifrost described as an “LLM gateway.” I thought it was overkill—my needs were just cost visibility—but the setup looked trivial, so I gave it a try.

One‑line code change

Before

const openai = new OpenAI({
  apiKey: process.env.OPENAI_API_KEY
});

After

const openai = new OpenAI({
  baseURL: "http://localhost:8080/openai",
  apiKey: "bifrost-key"
});

Bifrost now sits between my app and OpenAI; everything else stayed the same.

---

What I Learned In The First Week

Bifrost’s dashboard shows cost per endpoint, per user, per model. The data I finally had was eye‑opening:

• Email summarization = 61 % of total costs – it ran on every incoming email, even on one‑sentence queries where GPT‑4 was overkill.
• One customer accounted for 18 % of the monthly bill – they were hammering the API; I had no rate‑limiting in place.
• Sentiment analysis was both useless and expensive – the score was never used. Removing the feature saved ≈ $800/mo.

---

The Changes I Made (And The Results)

1. Switched Email Summarization to GPT‑3.5‑Turbo

   • Only for emails ≤ 100 words; longer emails stay on GPT‑4.
   • Cost for this feature dropped 42 % with no quality loss.

2. Added Per‑Customer Rate Limiting

   • Bifrost provides rate limits per virtual key.
   • Created tiered keys (free, paid, enterprise).
   • The “free‑tier” customer that was consuming 18 % of the budget is now limited to 100 requests/day; they upgraded to a paid plan.

3. Enabled Semantic Caching

   • Bifrost caches requests based on vector similarity, so semantically identical queries hit the cache even if phrased differently.
   • Example cache hits:
     • “How do I reset my password?”
     • “I forgot my password, what should I do?”
     • “Can’t log in, need password reset”
   • Achieved a ≈ 47 % cache‑hit rate, eliminating almost half of the LLM calls.

4. Set Up Cost Alerts

   • Budget limits per key with alerts at 80 % of the monthly budget.
   • Now I’m warned within hours of any cost spike.

---

The Results After 60 Days

Overall reduction: ≈ 52 % with the same features and quality, and only the one‑line endpoint change.

Savings Breakdown

---

The Secondary Benefits I Didn’t Expect

• Automatic Failover – Bifrost can route to multiple providers. I added Anthropic (Claude) as a backup; during OpenAI’s 4‑hour outage last month, traffic automatically switched to Claude with zero impact on users.
• Unified Observability – All LLM traffic (including future providers) is now visible in a single dashboard, simplifying future scaling decisions.

---

TL;DR

A simple “gateway” layer (Bifrost) gave me the visibility I needed to:

1. Identify wasteful features.
2. Apply model‑level cost optimizations.
3. Enforce per‑customer limits.
4. Leverage semantic caching.

Result: $3.2 k/month saved on LLM spend, a healthier margin, and better reliability—all with a single line of code change.

New – I checked the dashboard and saw the traffic shift.

Before Bifrost, that outage would have meant 4 hours of my product being completely down.

---

Better Debugging

The request logs in Bifrost show the full prompt, response, token counts, and latency for every call. When users report issues, I can search for their conversation and see exactly what the LLM received and returned.

Way better than my previous setup of grepping through application logs hoping I logged the right thing.

---

No Vendor Lock‑in

Because Bifrost abstracts the provider, I can test different models without changing code. I’ve run experiments routing 10 % of traffic to Claude to compare quality. If OpenAI pricing changes, I can switch providers in the config—not in the codebase.

---

What I’d Do Differently

If I were starting over, I’d deploy Bifrost on day 1 instead of six months in.

• The visibility alone is worth it.
• Even if you’re not optimizing costs yet, knowing where your money goes helps you make better product decisions.

I’d also enable semantic caching immediately. The 47 % cache‑hit rate I’m seeing now means I wasted ≈ $3,000 in the first six months on duplicate requests.

---

The Technical Setup (For Anyone Curious)

• Infrastructure – Bifrost self‑hosted on a t3.small EC2 instance ($15 / month).
• Load – Handles 15 000 requests/month with zero issues.
• Memory – ~120 MB.
• Semantic caching – Uses Weaviate for vector storage (free self‑hosted version).

Total infrastructure cost for the LLM gateway: $15 / month.

The cost savings paid for itself in the first week.

---

Is This Just for Cost Optimization?

No. The cost story got my attention, but Bifrost became my LLM infrastructure layer. It handles:

All without adding complexity to my application code. My backend still just calls openai.chat.completions.create() and everything else happens transparently.

---

The Bottom Line

I cut my AI costs in half without changing my product, degrading quality, or spending weeks on optimization.

The key was having visibility into what was actually expensive, then making targeted changes instead of guessing.

If you’re running LLM‑powered features in production and you don’t have per‑endpoint cost tracking, you’re flying blind. Bifrost gave me the data I needed to stop wasting money.

---

Setup

• GitHub:
• Docs:

Takes about 10 minutes to get running locally.

For anyone building with LLMs: add observability before you need it. Future you will thank you when the bill arrives.