Navigara connects AI coding performance directly to your engineering roadmap. Analyzing code like a senior engineer to prove real capacity gains, Navigara tracks exact costs per roadmap item, isolates off-roadmap waste, and identifies maintenance burn. Cut spend further by automatically routing routine CRUD tasks to low-cost models without sacrificing quality. Connects in minutes via Git history, JIRA/Linear, and any AI coding license for spend.
I spent years as a CTO trusting the velocity charts, cycle times, right up until I realized they were telling me a story I couldn't back up. Then a CFO asked whether Claude was producing real value for almost $150k a month or just producing invoices, and the honest answer was "we think so." Try saying that out loud while asking for a bigger token budget.
So we built Navigara. It reads your commit history, uses an LLM to understand the repo and explain what each change did, then scores how complex the merged work was. Not lines, not commits. Refactor 400 lines down to 40 and you score higher than shipping 400 more. Full methodology behind Engineering Throughput Value: https://500.navigara.com/methodology. ETV splits into Features, Maintenance, and Documentation. We measure against your team's own pre-AI baseline.
We pointed it at open source first and created a white paper about this. The result? Across the public commit history of Microsoft, Google, Cloudflare, OpenAI, Meta, and Vercel, ETV per engineer rose 116% between Q1 2025 and Q1 2026, measured across 676 contributors.
Then we noticed that a lot of the performance and code created inside companies was not aligned with the company roadmap. So the spend was high and a lot of PRs were generated, but the roadmap did not move that much faster. So we connected token spend to the roadmap (initiatives, epics, and tickets) to see what work is aligned with your roadmap, what just has a ticket without an initiative, and what is unaligned with your roadmap and put number in $ next to it.
Here’s the part I care about most: Lead engineering with data. My engineering team's ETV per engineer is up 4x against our own pre-AI baseline. We are realizing that process issues between epics, tickets, AI spend, and code are the source of teams slowing down as they grow in headcount. If you care about this too, check out “Process Checks.” It is like Sentry, but for engineering processes.
You can start a 14-day trial, or just poke around at navigara.com first. If you think we're measuring engineering wrong → That's the feedback I really want.
Jirka
Report
how do you account for engineers who spend significant time mentoring, designing systems or unblocking teammates?
Navigara
Hey, Product Hunt ✋,
I'm Jirka, co-founder of Navigara.
I spent years as a CTO trusting the velocity charts, cycle times, right up until I realized they were telling me a story I couldn't back up. Then a CFO asked whether Claude was producing real value for almost $150k a month or just producing invoices, and the honest answer was "we think so." Try saying that out loud while asking for a bigger token budget.
So we built Navigara. It reads your commit history, uses an LLM to understand the repo and explain what each change did, then scores how complex the merged work was. Not lines, not commits. Refactor 400 lines down to 40 and you score higher than shipping 400 more. Full methodology behind Engineering Throughput Value: https://500.navigara.com/methodology. ETV splits into Features, Maintenance, and Documentation. We measure against your team's own pre-AI baseline.
We pointed it at open source first and created a white paper about this. The result? Across the public commit history of Microsoft, Google, Cloudflare, OpenAI, Meta, and Vercel, ETV per engineer rose 116% between Q1 2025 and Q1 2026, measured across 676 contributors.
Then we noticed that a lot of the performance and code created inside companies was not aligned with the company roadmap. So the spend was high and a lot of PRs were generated, but the roadmap did not move that much faster. So we connected token spend to the roadmap (initiatives, epics, and tickets) to see what work is aligned with your roadmap, what just has a ticket without an initiative, and what is unaligned with your roadmap and put number in $ next to it.
Here’s the part I care about most: Lead engineering with data. My engineering team's ETV per engineer is up 4x against our own pre-AI baseline. We are realizing that process issues between epics, tickets, AI spend, and code are the source of teams slowing down as they grow in headcount. If you care about this too, check out “Process Checks.” It is like Sentry, but for engineering processes.
You can start a 14-day trial, or just poke around at navigara.com first. If you think we're measuring engineering wrong → That's the feedback I really want.
Jirka
how do you account for engineers who spend significant time mentoring, designing systems or unblocking teammates?
Navigara
@croft_benjamin We recommend focusing on team performance instead. The role of every team member is different.
Instruct
Congrats on the launch, much needed product! 👏
Navigara
@mikolaj_kacki1 Thank you, Miko 🥰
Product Hunt Wrapped 2025
Congrats on the launch day!
Navigara
@alexcloudstar Thank you 🤗