Frontier models are incredible. They are also overkill for 80% of what enterprise teams use them for.
There’s a default assumption in enterprise AI right now: when in doubt, choose the biggest model. It feels safe. More parameters, more capability, fewer complaints from users. But this instinct is often wrong and almost always expensive.
Most enterprise AI workloads can be easily handled sans frontier scale reasoning. Summarization, extraction, classification, routing, rewriting. These tasks succeed reliably on models that cost a fraction of the most cutting-edge models. The gap between adequate and overkill is where AI budgets go to die.
This isn’t about being cheap. It’s about good engineering.
Teams often anchor on token price alone, but the real cost comes from how frontier models amplify inefficiencies across the entire workflow. Three forces combine to make oversized model choices disproportionately expensive.
Taken together, these forces turn oversized model usage into a system wide tax, not just a token price issue.
The gap between adequate and overkill is where AI budgets go to die. This isn’t about being cheap. It’s about good engineering.
Most workloads fall cleanly into two categories: tasks where small models excel and tasks where scale matters. Treating everything like a hard problem is how AI budgets get distorted.
Lightweight models are ideal when tasks are narrow, well scoped, and have clear success criteria. Examples include:
These tasks depend on pattern recognition and constraint handling. Bigger models do not make them better and often introduce variation that teams do not want.
Premium models are justified when the task is genuinely complex. Examples include:
Most enterprises have a mix of both types. The inefficiency comes from routing all of them to the same model tier by default.
BLOG: Shadow AI: The Silent Budget Killer Inside Every Company
The core issue isn’t model choice. It’s lack of visibility and policy enforcement around how models are actually being used.
A developer builds an internal tool, hardcodes a model, verifies that it works, and moves on. Six months later the workflow is handling 50k requests a day on a model that costs 20x more than necessary. No one intended this. It is simply the absence of guardrails.
The teams that manage AI economics successfully do two things: they measure everything, and they control everything that matters.
This is exactly the layer that Cake provides. Cake gives organizations the visibility, routing logic, and enforcement controls that make intentional model selection possible.
Cake turns model selection into an engineering practice driven by measurement, control, and continuous improvement. Teams ship faster, spend less, and run more predictable systems because every task hits the model that matches its true complexity.
The biggest model is rarely the best model for any given task. Enterprise value comes from matching model capability to task complexity and having the visibility and guardrails to enforce that match at scale.
The real question is not whether you can afford frontier models. It is whether you can afford not to know when you are using them unnecessarily.