Skip to content

Same-model provider benchmark

Ambient vs SiliconFlow: LLM provider comparison

Compare Ambient and SiliconFlow on 4 exact shared text models. ProviderBench keeps speed, price, and catalog coverage separate so naturally faster model catalogs cannot distort the result.

Ambient

5 indexed models

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

SiliconFlow

36 indexed models

Headquarters
Singapore
Server regions
United States
Model types
35 text, 1 embeddings

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

2.46× typical advantage

4 exact models with complete recent speed data

Lowest token cost

$1.3254 / 1M

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

Most models available

36 models

Complete catalog coverage across all indexed modalities

Shared-model benchmark summary

MetricAmbient(0)SiliconFlow(0)
SpeedAmbient8.34 sSiliconFlow20.45 s
TTFTAmbient0.58 sSiliconFlow1.74 s
TPSAmbient64.5 tok/sSiliconFlow27.5 tok/s
PriceAmbient$1.575 / 1MSiliconFlow$1.3254 / 1M
UptimeAmbient99.78%SiliconFlow99.99%
Green value Better comparable resultRed value Worse comparable result

Visual comparison

Price and performance charts

AmbientSiliconFlow
500-token response by shared model

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

Ambient has the lower typical same-model response ratio across 4 measured models.

Blended token price by shared model

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

SiliconFlow has the lower typical price ratio across 4 priced shared models.

Shared text models

4 exact models · newest first

ModelAmbient(0)SiliconFlow(0)
GLM 5.2Winner · Ambient
Ambient
Price— Best comparable value
$2.1667 / 1M
Speed— Best comparable value
7.58 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
0.54 s
TPS— Best comparable value
71.0 tok/s
Uptime— Worst comparable value
99.78%
Context
101.4K
Route
ambient/fp8
SiliconFlow
Price— Worst comparable value
$2.232 / 1M
Speed— Worst comparable value
19.64 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
2.40 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
29.0 tok/s
Uptime— Best comparable value
99.99%
Context
1M
Route
siliconflow/fp8
Kimi K2.7 CodeWinner · Ambient
Ambient
Price— Worst comparable value
$2.1333 / 1M
Speed— Best comparable value
9.10 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
0.48 s
TPS— Best comparable value
58.0 tok/s
Uptime
100.00%
Context
262.1K
Route
ambient/int4
SiliconFlow
Price— Best comparable value
$1.8394 / 1M
Speed— Worst comparable value
21.25 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
2.02 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
26.0 tok/s
Uptime
100.00%
Context
262.1K
Route
siliconflow/fp8
DeepSeek V4 FlashWinner · SiliconFlow
Ambient
Price— Worst comparable value
$0.6 / 1M
Speed— Worst comparable value
42.52 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
0.85 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
12.0 tok/s
Uptime— Worst comparable value
98.98%
Context
1M
Route
ambient/fp4
SiliconFlow
Price— Best comparable value
$0.18 / 1M
Speed— Best comparable value
34.56 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
1.23 s
TPS— Best comparable value
15.0 tok/s
Uptime— Best comparable value
99.24%
Context
1M
Route
siliconflow/fp8
Kimi K2.5Winner · Ambient
Ambient
Price— Worst comparable value
$1.4 / 1M
Speed— Best comparable value
5.05 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
0.62 s
TPS— Best comparable value
113.0 tok/s
Uptime
N/a
Context
262.1K
Route
ambient/int4
SiliconFlow
Price— Best comparable value
$1.05 / 1M
Speed— Worst comparable value
16.62 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
1.47 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
33.0 tok/s
Uptime
100.00%
Context
262.1K
Route
siliconflow/int4

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 SiliconFlow analysis

How Ambient and SiliconFlow compare for AI inference

Ambient and SiliconFlow share 4 indexed text models, including GLM 5.2, Kimi K2.7 Code, DeepSeek V4 Flash, Kimi K2.5. Ambient has the stronger typical response-time result on the directly measured set.

Same-model speed evidence

4 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

4 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 5 indexed models and lists no published server regions; SiliconFlow has 36 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 SiliconFlow.