Skip to content
ProviderBench home

Same-model provider benchmark

Ambient vs CoreWeave: LLM provider comparison

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

This pair has fewer than three complete same-model speed measurements. The available catalog comparison remains visible, but the page is excluded from search indexing and no speed winner is estimated.

Ambient

3 indexed models

Headquarters
N/a
Server regions
N/a
Model types
3 text

CoreWeave

20 indexed models

Headquarters
United States
Server regions
United States
Model types
20 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

Not enough comparable data.

N/a

2 exact models with complete recent speed data

Lowest token cost

Ambient

$1.3833 / 1M

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

Most models available

CoreWeave

20 models

Complete catalog coverage across all indexed modalities

Shared-model benchmark summary

MetricAmbient(0)CoreWeave(0)
SpeedAmbient49.41 sCoreWeave12.31 s
TTFTAmbient2.54 sCoreWeave0.64 s
TPSAmbient12.0 tok/sCoreWeave52.5 tok/s
UptimeAmbient97.63%CoreWeave99.92%
BlendedAmbient$1.3833 / 1MCoreWeave$1.5133 / 1M
Green value Better comparable resultRed value Worse comparable result

Visual comparison

Price and performance charts

AmbientCoreWeave
500-token response by shared model

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

Neither provider has a clear response-time advantage.

Blended token price by shared model

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

Ambient has the lower typical price ratio across 3 priced shared models.

Shared text models

3 exact models · newest first

ModelAmbient(0)CoreWeave(0)
GLM 5.2
Ambient
Speed
N/a
TTFT
N/a
TPS
N/a
Uptime
N/a
Context
101.4K
Route
ambient/fp8
Blended— Best comparable value
$2.1667 / 1M
CoreWeave
Speed
20.46 s
TTFT
1.94 s
TPS
27.0 tok/s
Uptime
99.96%
Context
262.1K
Route
coreweave/fp4
Blended— Worst comparable value
$2.3933 / 1M
Kimi K2.7 CodeWinner · CoreWeave
Ambient
Speed— Worst comparable value
34.35 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
3.10 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
16.0 tok/s
Uptime— Worst comparable value
99.73%
Context
262.1K
Route
ambient/int4
Blended— Best comparable value
$1.7967 / 1M
CoreWeave
Speed— Best comparable value
7.35 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
0.68 s
TPS— Best comparable value
75.0 tok/s
Uptime— Best comparable value
100.00%
Context
262.1K
Route
coreweave/int4
Blended— Worst comparable value
$1.96 / 1M
DeepSeek V4 FlashWinner · CoreWeave
Ambient
Speed— Worst comparable value
64.47 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
1.97 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
8.0 tok/s
Uptime— Worst comparable value
95.54%
Context
1M
Route
ambient/fp4
Blended
$0.1867 / 1M
CoreWeave
Speed— Best comparable value
17.27 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
0.60 s
TPS— Best comparable value
30.0 tok/s
Uptime— Best comparable value
99.85%
Context
1M
Route
coreweave/fp8
Blended
$0.1867 / 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.

Ambient vs CoreWeave analysis

How Ambient and CoreWeave compare for AI inference

Ambient and CoreWeave share 3 indexed text models, including GLM 5.2, Kimi K2.7 Code, DeepSeek V4 Flash. There is not enough paired speed data to name a response-time winner.

Same-model speed evidence

2 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

Ambient has 3 indexed models and lists no published server regions; CoreWeave has 20 models and lists 1 region. 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 Ambient and CoreWeave.

CoreWeave vs DeepInfra

16 shared model benchmarks

CoreWeave vs SiliconFlow

15 shared model benchmarks

CoreWeave vs NovitaAI

14 shared model benchmarks

CoreWeave vs Parasail

13 shared model benchmarks

CoreWeave vs Venice

12 shared model benchmarks

CoreWeave vs AtlasCloud

10 shared model benchmarks