An open-source end-to-end GenAI platform for air-gapped, on-premises or cloud VPC deployments. Users can Query and summarize documents or just chat with local private GPT LLMs using h2oGPT, an Apache V2 open-source project. And the commercially available Enterprise h2oGPTe provides information retrieval on internal data, privately hosts LLMs, and secures data.
N/A
Pytorch
Score 9.3 out of 10
N/A
Pytorch is an open source machine learning (ML) framework boasting a rich ecosystem of tools and libraries that extend PyTorch and support development in computer vision, NLP and or that supports other ML goals.
N/A
TensorFlow
Score 7.7 out of 10
N/A
TensorFlow is an open-source machine learning software library for numerical computation using data flow graphs. It was originally developed by Google.
Both are open source (though H2O only up to some level). Both comprise of deep learning, but H2O is not focused directly on deep learning, while Tensor Flow has a "laser" focus on deep learning. H2O is also more focused on scalability. H2O should be looked at not as a …
The syntax of PyTorch is much better in my opinion, and the programming style is more pythonic and easier to use. I also think PyTorch is a lot easier to debug than the competitors I've listed (Caffe2 and TensorFlow). I do like some of the examples given on tensorflows website, …
As I described in previous statements, Pytorch is much better suited than TensorFlow from a software development look. This Pythonic idea was then taken and repeated by all the other frameworks.
You can get to better performance models by better understanding the deep learning …
Pytorch is very, very simple compared to TensorFlow. Simple to install, less dependency issues, and very small learning curve. TensorFlow is very much optimised for robust deployment but very complicated to train simple models and play around with the loss functions. It needs a …
TensorFlow without Keras is not a pleasant experience; when using Keras, it is pretty nice, but it feels more opinionated than PyTorch; one is less free, which is not an issue in industrial settings with classic workflow but can be an issue in research settings. JAX is great …
Saving and loading Machine/Deep Learning models is very easy with Pytorch. It provides visualization capabilities when combined with Tensorboard, and mathematical operations are highly optimized. Easy to understand for a person who is an expert in Python. It takes significantly …
I prefer Pytorch overall, recent models are often only available with Pytorch Pytorch is also easier to use and it is often easier to find support for Pytorch code nowadays than TensorFlow Also it seems like lots of Google internal resource uses JAX. I mostly uses TensorFlow to …
Most suited if in little time you wanted to build and train a model. Then, H2O makes life very simple. It has support with R, Python and Java, so no programming dependency is required to use it. It's very simple to use. If you want to modify or tweak your ML algorithm then H2O is not suitable. You can't develop a model from scratch.
They have created Pytorch Lightening on top of Pytorch to make the life of Data Scientists easy so that they can use complex models they need with just a few lines of code, so it's becoming popular. As compared to TensorFlow(Keras), where we can create custom neural networks by just adding layers, it's slightly complicated in Pytorch.
TensorFlow is great for most deep learning purposes. This is especially true in two domains: 1. Computer vision: image classification, object detection and image generation via generative adversarial networks 2. Natural language processing: text classification and generation. The good community support often means that a lot of off-the-shelf models can be used to prove a concept or test an idea quickly. That, and Google's promotion of Colab means that ideas can be shared quite freely. Training, visualizing and debugging models is very easy in TensorFlow, compared to other platforms (especially the good old Caffe days). In terms of productionizing, it's a bit of a mixed bag. In our case, most of our feature building is performed via Apache Spark. This means having to convert Parquet (columnar optimized) files to a TensorFlow friendly format i.e., protobufs. The lack of good JVM bindings mean that our projects end up being a mix of Python and Scala. This makes it hard to reuse some of the tooling and support we wrote in Scala. This is where MXNet shines better (though its Scala API could do with more work).
Theano is perhaps a bit faster and eats up less memory than TensorFlow on a given GPU, perhaps due to element-wise ops. Tensorflow wins for multi-GPU and “compilation” time.
The big advantage of PyTorch is how close it is to the algorithm. Oftentimes, it is easier to read Pytorch code than a given paper directly. I particularly like the object-oriented approach in model definition; it makes things very clean and easy to teach to software engineers.
Community support for TensorFlow is great. There's a huge community that truly loves the platform and there are many examples of development in TensorFlow. Often, when a new good technique is published, there will be a TensorFlow implementation not long after. This makes it quick to ally the latest techniques from academia straight to production-grade systems. Tooling around TensorFlow is also good. TensorBoard has been such a useful tool, I can't imagine how hard it would be to debug a deep neural network gone wrong without TensorBoard.
Both are open source (though H2O only up to some level). Both comprise of deep learning, but H2O is not focused directly on deep learning, while Tensor Flow has a "laser" focus on deep learning. H2O is also more focused on scalability. H2O should be looked at not as a competitor but rather a complementary tool. The use case is usually not only about the algorithms, but also about the data model and data logistics and accessibility. H2O is more accessible due to its UI. Also, both can be accessed from Python. The community around TensorFlow seems larger than that of H2O.
Pytorch is very, very simple compared to TensorFlow. Simple to install, less dependency issues, and very small learning curve. TensorFlow is very much optimised for robust deployment but very complicated to train simple models and play around with the loss functions. It needs a lot of juggling around with the documentation. The research community also prefers PyTorch, so it becomes easy to find solutions to most of the problems. Keras is very simple and good for learning ML / DL. But when going deep into research or building some product that requires a lot of tweaks and experimentation, Keras is not suitable for that. May be good for proving some hypotheses but not good for rigorous experimentation with complex models.
Keras is built on top of TensorFlow, but it is much simpler to use and more Python style friendly, so if you don't want to focus on too many details or control and not focus on some advanced features, Keras is one of the best options, but as far as if you want to dig into more, for sure TensorFlow is the right choice
Positive impact: saving in infrastructure expenses - compared to other bulky tools this costs a fraction
Positive impact: ability to get quick fixes from H2O when problems arise - compared to waiting for several months/years for new releases from other vendors
Positive impact: Access to H2O core team and able to get features that are needed for our business quickly added to the core H2O product
