Skip to content
ProviderBench home

Same-model provider benchmark

Alibaba Cloud Int. vs Chutes: LLM provider comparison

Compare Alibaba Cloud Int. and Chutes on 3 exact shared text models. ProviderBench keeps speed, price, and catalog coverage separate so naturally faster model catalogs cannot distort the result.

Alibaba Cloud Int.

48 indexed models

Headquarters
Singapore
Server regions
SingaporeChina
Model types
45 text, 2 video, 1 transcription

Chutes

9 indexed models

Headquarters
United States
Server regions
N/a
Model types
9 text

At a glance

Metric winners

There is no overall score. Each winner answers one specific question using only directly comparable data.

Fastest on shared models

Alibaba Cloud Int.

3.07× typical advantage

3 exact models with complete recent speed data

Lowest token cost

Alibaba Cloud Int.

$1.4531 / 1M

3 exact models using a 1K-input/500-output mix

Most models available

Alibaba Cloud Int.

48 models

Complete catalog coverage across all indexed modalities

Shared-model benchmark summary

MetricAlibaba Cloud Int.(0)Chutes(0)
SpeedAlibaba Cloud Int.13.97 sChutes33.94 s
TTFTAlibaba Cloud Int.1.77 sChutes1.92 s
TPSAlibaba Cloud Int.41.0 tok/sChutes18.0 tok/s
UptimeAlibaba Cloud Int.100.00%Chutes95.09%
BlendedAlibaba Cloud Int.$1.4531 / 1MChutes$1.5222 / 1M
Green value Better comparable resultRed value Worse comparable result

Visual comparison

Price and performance charts

Alibaba Cloud Int.Chutes
500-token response by shared model

Estimated seconds using recent median response-start and output-speed data. Lower is better.

Alibaba Cloud Int. has the lower typical same-model response ratio across 3 measured models.

Blended token price by shared model

USD per 1 million tokens using a 1,000-input/500-output mix. Lower is better.

Alibaba Cloud Int. has the lower typical price ratio across 3 priced shared models.

Shared text models

3 exact models · newest first

ModelAlibaba Cloud Int.(0)Chutes(0)
GLM 5.2Winner · Chutes
Alibaba Cloud Int.
Speed— Worst comparable value
17.91 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
1.78 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
31.0 tok/s
Uptime
99.93%
Context
1M
Route
alibaba
Blended— Best comparable value
$2.1192 / 1M
Chutes
Speed— Best comparable value
13.03 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
1.92 s
TPS— Best comparable value
45.0 tok/s
Uptime
N/a
Context
1M
Route
chutes/fp4
Blended— Worst comparable value
$2.4 / 1M
Qwen3.6 27BWinner · Alibaba Cloud Int.
Alibaba Cloud Int.
Speed— Best comparable value
13.97 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
1.77 s
TPS— Best comparable value
41.0 tok/s
Uptime— Best comparable value
100.00%
Context
262.1K
Route
alibaba
Blended— Worst comparable value
$1.2 / 1M
Chutes
Speed— Worst comparable value
72.85 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
1.43 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
7.0 tok/s
Uptime— Worst comparable value
99.25%
Context
262.1K
Route
chutes/fp8
Blended— Best comparable value
$0.8667 / 1M
Qwen3.5 397B A17BWinner · Alibaba Cloud Int.
Alibaba Cloud Int.
Speed— Best comparable value
11.04 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
1.52 s
TPS— Best comparable value
52.5 tok/s
Uptime— Best comparable value
100.00%
Context
262.1K
Route
alibaba
Blended— Best comparable value
$1.04 / 1M
Chutes
Speed— Worst comparable value
33.94 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
6.16 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
18.0 tok/s
Uptime— Worst comparable value
90.94%
Context
262.1K
Route
chutes/fp8
Blended— Worst comparable value
$1.3 / 1M

A per-model winner combines blended price and estimated 500-token response time with equal proportional weight. Ties and rows missing either measurement receive no badge. Comparison data calculated . Values use one deterministic route per provider and model; missing measurements remain visible as N/a.

Alibaba Cloud Int. vs Chutes analysis

How Alibaba Cloud Int. and Chutes compare for AI inference

Alibaba Cloud Int. and Chutes share 3 indexed text models, including GLM 5.2, Qwen3.6 27B, Qwen3.5 397B A17B. Alibaba Cloud Int. has the stronger typical response-time result on the directly measured set.

Same-model speed evidence

3 shared models currently have complete response-start and output-speed measurements on both providers. The speed comparison uses per-model ratios before taking the median, so naturally faster model catalogs do not improve the result.

Token pricing on one workload

3 shared models have complete input and output prices on both providers. Prices use the same 1,000-input/500-output-token mix and are normalized to one million tokens for readability.

Catalog and deployment differences

Alibaba Cloud Int. has 48 indexed models and lists 2 published server regions; Chutes has 9 models and lists no regions. Verify data residency, privacy terms, limits, and production latency directly before choosing.

Related same-model benchmarks

Compare with other providers

Explore qualified alternatives with the most shared measured models. Recommendations include comparisons for both Alibaba Cloud Int. and Chutes.

Alibaba Cloud Int. vs DeepInfra

18 shared model benchmarks

Chutes vs Phala

9 shared model benchmarks

Alibaba Cloud Int. vs NovitaAI

16 shared model benchmarks

Chutes vs Venice

9 shared model benchmarks

Alibaba Cloud Int. vs SiliconFlow

13 shared model benchmarks

Chutes vs AtlasCloud

7 shared model benchmarks