Skip to content
ProviderBench home

Same-model provider benchmark

Baseten vs Chutes: LLM provider comparison

Compare Baseten 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.

Baseten

6 indexed models

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

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

Baseten

3.18× typical advantage

3 exact models with complete recent speed data

Lowest token cost

Chutes

$1.8956 / 1M

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

Most models available

Chutes

9 models

Complete catalog coverage across all indexed modalities

Shared-model benchmark summary

MetricBaseten(0)Chutes(0)
SpeedBaseten6.00 sChutes18.91 s
TTFTBaseten1.44 sChutes2.24 s
TPSBaseten91.0 tok/sChutes30.0 tok/s
UptimeBaseten94.61%Chutes68.60%
BlendedBaseten$2.2222 / 1MChutes$1.8956 / 1M
Green value Better comparable resultRed value Worse comparable result

Visual comparison

Price and performance charts

BasetenChutes
500-token response by shared model

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

Baseten 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.

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

Shared text models

3 exact models · newest first

ModelBaseten(0)Chutes(0)
GLM 5.2Winner · Baseten
Baseten
Speed— Best comparable value
11.44 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
1.44 s
TPS— Best comparable value
50.0 tok/s
Uptime
N/a
Context
256K
Route
baseten/fp8
Blended
$2.4 / 1M
Chutes
Speed— Worst comparable value
13.03 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
1.92 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
45.0 tok/s
Uptime
N/a
Context
1M
Route
chutes/fp4
Blended
$2.4 / 1M
Kimi K2.6Winner · Baseten
Baseten
Speed— Best comparable value
5.91 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
1.67 s
TPS— Best comparable value
118.0 tok/s
Uptime
N/a
Context
262K
Route
baseten/fp4
Blended— Worst comparable value
$1.9667 / 1M
Chutes
Speed— Worst comparable value
18.91 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
2.24 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
30.0 tok/s
Uptime
96.59%
Context
262.1K
Route
chutes/int4
Blended— Best comparable value
$1.6067 / 1M
GLM 5.1Winner · Baseten
Baseten
Speed— Best comparable value
6.00 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
0.51 s
TPS— Best comparable value
91.0 tok/s
Uptime— Best comparable value
94.61%
Context
202.8K
Route
baseten/fp4
Blended— Worst comparable value
$2.3 / 1M
Chutes
Speed— Worst comparable value
19.10 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
2.43 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
30.0 tok/s
Uptime— Worst comparable value
68.60%
Context
202.8K
Route
chutes/fp8
Blended— Best comparable value
$1.68 / 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.

Baseten vs Chutes analysis

How Baseten and Chutes compare for AI inference

Baseten and Chutes share 3 indexed text models, including GLM 5.2, Kimi K2.6, GLM 5.1. Baseten 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

Baseten has 6 indexed models and lists no 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 Baseten and Chutes.

Baseten vs DeepInfra

6 shared model benchmarks

Chutes vs Phala

9 shared model benchmarks

Baseten vs DigitalOcean

5 shared model benchmarks

Chutes vs Venice

9 shared model benchmarks

Baseten vs NovitaAI

5 shared model benchmarks

Chutes vs SiliconFlow

8 shared model benchmarks