Skip to content
ProviderBench home

Same-model provider benchmark

Chutes vs DigitalOcean: LLM provider comparison

Compare Chutes and DigitalOcean on 6 exact shared text models. ProviderBench keeps speed, price, and catalog coverage separate so naturally faster model catalogs cannot distort the result.

Chutes

8 indexed models

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

DigitalOcean

16 indexed models

Headquarters
N/a
Server regions
N/a
Model types
16 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

Chutes

1.04× typical advantage

6 exact models with complete recent speed data

Lowest token cost

DigitalOcean

$1.2342 / 1M

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

Most models available

DigitalOcean

16 models

Complete catalog coverage across all indexed modalities

Shared-model benchmark summary

MetricChutesDigitalOcean
Typical 500-token response22.08 s31.70 s
Typical response start3.48 s1.15 s
Typical output speed26.0 tok/s16.5 tok/s
Blended token price$1.255 / 1M$1.2342 / 1M
Typical route uptime91.79%99.04%

Visual comparison

Price and performance charts

ChutesDigitalOcean
500-token response by shared model

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

Chutes has the lower typical same-model response ratio across 6 measured models.

Blended token price by shared model

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

DigitalOcean has the lower typical price ratio across 6 priced shared models.

Shared text models

6 exact models · newest first

ModelChutesDigitalOcean
Kimi K2.6Winner · DigitalOcean

moonshotai/kimi-k2.6

Chutes
Blended price
$1.6067 / 1M
500-token response
31.19 s
Response starts
4.88 s
Output speed
19.0 tok/s
Route uptime
98.67%
Context
262.1K
Route
chutes/int4
DigitalOcean
Blended price
$1.5733 / 1M
500-token response
13.08 s
Response starts
0.89 s
Output speed
41.0 tok/s
Route uptime
99.04%
Context
262.1K
Route
digitalocean
GLM 5.1Winner · DigitalOcean

z-ai/glm-5.1

Chutes
Blended price
$1.68 / 1M
500-token response
38.05 s
Response starts
18.05 s
Output speed
25.0 tok/s
Route uptime
63.57%
Context
202.8K
Route
chutes/fp8
DigitalOcean
Blended price
$2.0833 / 1M
500-token response
29.06 s
Response starts
1.28 s
Output speed
18.0 tok/s
Route uptime
57.53%
Context
163.8K
Route
digitalocean
Qwen3.5 397B A17BWinner · Chutes

qwen/qwen3.5-397b-a17b

Chutes
Blended price
$1.3 / 1M
500-token response
21.17 s
Response starts
2.65 s
Output speed
27.0 tok/s
Route uptime
99.94%
Context
262.1K
Route
chutes/fp8
DigitalOcean
Blended price
$1.0733 / 1M
500-token response
60.33 s
Response starts
4.77 s
Output speed
9.0 tok/s
Route uptime
81.67%
Context
131.1K
Route
digitalocean
MiniMax M2.5Winner · DigitalOcean

minimax/minimax-m2.5

Chutes
Blended price
$0.5 / 1M
500-token response
14.83 s
Response starts
1.68 s
Output speed
38.0 tok/s
Route uptime
83.43%
Context
196.6K
Route
chutes/fp8
DigitalOcean
Blended price
$0.45 / 1M
500-token response
8.35 s
Response starts
0.78 s
Output speed
66.0 tok/s
Route uptime
100.00%
Context
65.5K
Route
digitalocean
GLM 5Winner · Chutes

z-ai/glm-5

Chutes
Blended price
$1.4833 / 1M
500-token response
22.84 s
Response starts
4.32 s
Output speed
27.0 tok/s
Route uptime
N/a
Context
202.8K
Route
chutes/fp8
DigitalOcean
Blended price
$1.3 / 1M
500-token response
63.85 s
Response starts
1.35 s
Output speed
8.0 tok/s
Route uptime
95.70%
Context
64K
Route
digitalocean
Kimi K2.5Winner · Chutes

moonshotai/kimi-k2.5

Chutes
Blended price
$0.96 / 1M
500-token response
21.33 s
Response starts
1.33 s
Output speed
25.0 tok/s
Route uptime
91.79%
Context
262.1K
Route
chutes/int4
DigitalOcean
Blended price
$0.925 / 1M
500-token response
34.35 s
Response starts
1.01 s
Output speed
15.0 tok/s
Route uptime
99.45%
Context
262.1K
Route
digitalocean

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.

Chutes vs DigitalOcean analysis

How Chutes and DigitalOcean compare for AI inference

Chutes and DigitalOcean share 6 indexed text models, including Kimi K2.6, GLM 5.1, Qwen3.5 397B A17B, MiniMax M2.5, GLM 5. Chutes has the stronger typical response-time result on the directly measured set.

Same-model speed evidence

6 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

6 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

Chutes has 8 indexed models and lists no published server regions; DigitalOcean has 16 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 Chutes and DigitalOcean.

Chutes vs DeepInfra

8 shared model benchmarks

DigitalOcean vs NovitaAI

15 shared model benchmarks

Chutes vs Phala

8 shared model benchmarks

DigitalOcean vs AtlasCloud

11 shared model benchmarks

Chutes vs Venice

8 shared model benchmarks

DigitalOcean vs Parasail

11 shared model benchmarks