Benchmark runs are data. Decisions are the product.

Run a benchmark twice and you have numbers. Run it for a month and you have a folder of numbers nobody looks at. The gap between "we measure performance" and "we catch regressions before users do" isn't more benchmarking — it's turning raw runs into comparisons a human can act on.

Why do benchmark results rot?

Because raw runs answer the wrong question. A run tells you what happened once; every decision you actually face is comparative: is this build slower than the last one? Did that optimization hold across machines? Is the trend drifting up slowly enough that no single run looks alarming?

Getting from runs to those answers by hand means spreadsheet archaeology: find the old CSV, align the columns, normalize the units, eyeball the delta, wonder if the difference is noise. Most teams do it once for a launch and never again — which is exactly how a 3%-per-week regression ships for a quarter.

What should a benchmark workflow produce?

Three artifacts, in order of value:

1. Comparisons — this run against a baseline, side by side, with the delta computed for you.
2. Trends — the same benchmark charted across runs, so slow drift is visible even when each step hides inside the noise floor.
3. Verdicts — a flag when a result crosses a threshold you set, so "did we regress?" is a lookup, not an investigation.

Where does Benchmark Analyzer fit?

Benchmark Analyzer ($10, open beta) does exactly this: feed it raw benchmark runs, get comparisons, charts, and regression flags without the spreadsheet stage. It's deliberately small — not an observability platform, just the missing step between "I ran the benchmark" and "I know what to do." It follows the same rules as every tool on the ZediaLabs products page: local, simple, priced once.