Chutes vs CoreWeave: LLM provider comparison

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

CCoreWeave

2.27× typical advantage

6 exact models with complete recent speed data

Lowest token cost

CChutes

$1.1678 / 1M

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

Most models available

CCoreWeave

20 models

Complete catalog coverage across all indexed modalities

Shared-model benchmark summary

Metric	CChutes☆☆☆☆☆(0)	CCoreWeave☆☆☆☆☆(0)
Speed	Chutes17.42 s	CoreWeave12.37 s
TTFT	Chutes1.56 s	CoreWeave0.44 s
TPS	Chutes34.0 tok/s	CoreWeave54.5 tok/s
Uptime	Chutes94.13%	CoreWeave99.98%
Blended	Chutes$1.1678 / 1M	CoreWeave$1.5261 / 1M

Model	CChutes☆☆☆☆☆(0)	CCoreWeave☆☆☆☆☆(0)
ZA GLM 5.2Winner · Chutes	Chutes Speed— Best comparable value 12.98 s TTFT— Best comparable value 1.61 s TPS— Best comparable value 44.0 tok/s Uptime— Worst comparable value 92.54% Context 1M Route chutes/fp4 Blended— Best comparable value $2.15 / 1M	CoreWeave Speed— Worst comparable value 20.46 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 1.94 s TPS— Worst comparable value 27.0 tok/s Uptime— Best comparable value 99.96% Context 262.1K Route coreweave/fp4 Blended— Worst comparable value $2.3933 / 1M
Q Qwen3.6 27BWinner · CoreWeave	Chutes Speed— Worst comparable value 42.95 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 1.28 s TPS— Worst comparable value 12.0 tok/s Uptime— Worst comparable value 95.72% Context 262.1K Route chutes/fp8 Blended— Best comparable value $0.8667 / 1M	CoreWeave Speed— Best comparable value 18.18 s TTFT— Best comparable value 0.33 s TPS— Best comparable value 28.0 tok/s Uptime— Best comparable value 100.00% Context 262.1K Route coreweave/fp8 Blended— Worst comparable value $1.6 / 1M
M Kimi K2.6Winner · CoreWeave	Chutes Speed— Worst comparable value 13.07 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 1.17 s TPS— Worst comparable value 42.0 tok/s Uptime— Worst comparable value 99.27% Context 262.1K Route chutes/int4 Blended— Best comparable value $1.6067 / 1M	CoreWeave Speed— Best comparable value 3.30 s TTFT— Best comparable value 0.34 s TPS— Best comparable value 169.0 tok/s Uptime— Best comparable value 99.89% Context 262.1K Route coreweave/fp4 Blended— Worst comparable value $1.9667 / 1M
ZA GLM 5.1Winner · CoreWeave	Chutes Speed— Worst comparable value 20.51 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 3.27 s TPS— Worst comparable value 29.0 tok/s Uptime— Worst comparable value 28.70% Context 202.8K Route chutes/fp8 Blended— Best comparable value $1.68 / 1M	CoreWeave Speed— Best comparable value 4.38 s TTFT— Best comparable value 0.50 s TPS— Best comparable value 129.0 tok/s Uptime— Best comparable value 100.00% Context 202.8K Route coreweave/fp8 Blended— Worst comparable value $2.4 / 1M
G Gemma 4 31BWinner · CoreWeave	Chutes Speed— Worst comparable value 58.02 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 2.46 s TPS— Worst comparable value 9.0 tok/s Uptime— Worst comparable value 61.78% Context 131.1K Route chutes/fp4 Blended— Worst comparable value $0.2033 / 1M	CoreWeave Speed— Best comparable value 30.82 s TTFT— Best comparable value 1.41 s TPS— Best comparable value 17.0 tok/s Uptime— Best comparable value 77.67% Context 262.1K Route coreweave/bf16 Blended— Best comparable value $0.1967 / 1M
M MiniMax M2.5Winner · CoreWeave	Chutes Speed— Worst comparable value 14.34 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 1.51 s TPS— Worst comparable value 39.0 tok/s Uptime 100.00% Context 196.6K Route chutes/fp8 Blended— Best comparable value $0.5 / 1M	CoreWeave Speed— Best comparable value 6.55 s TTFT— Best comparable value 0.38 s TPS— Best comparable value 81.0 tok/s Uptime 100.00% Context 196.6K Route coreweave/fp8 Blended— Worst comparable value $0.6 / 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 Jul 24, 2026, 6:19 PM UTC. Values use one deterministic route per provider and model; missing measurements remain visible as N/a.