Skip to content
ProviderBench home

Same-model provider benchmark

Chutes vs Fireworks: LLM provider comparison

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

Chutes

9 indexed models

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

Fireworks

8 indexed models

Headquarters
United States
Server regions
N/a
Model types
8 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

Fireworks

1.66× 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

MetricChutes(0)Fireworks(0)
SpeedChutes18.91 sFireworks11.51 s
TTFTChutes2.24 sFireworks1.51 s
TPSChutes30.0 tok/sFireworks50.0 tok/s
UptimeChutesN/aFireworksN/a
BlendedChutes$1.8956 / 1MFireworks$2.2556 / 1M
Green value Better comparable resultRed value Worse comparable result

Visual comparison

Price and performance charts

ChutesFireworks
500-token response by shared model

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

Fireworks 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

ModelChutes(0)Fireworks(0)
GLM 5.2Winner · Chutes
Chutes
Speed— Best comparable value
13.03 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
1.92 s
TPS— Best comparable value
45.0 tok/s
Uptime
N/a
Context
1M
Route
chutes/fp4
Blended
$2.4 / 1M
Fireworks
Speed— Worst comparable value
16.10 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
1.81 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
35.0 tok/s
Uptime
83.97%
Context
1M
Route
fireworks
Blended
$2.4 / 1M
Kimi K2.6Winner · Fireworks
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
Fireworks
Speed— Best comparable value
5.80 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
0.42 s
TPS— Best comparable value
93.0 tok/s
Uptime
N/a
Context
262.1K
Route
fireworks
Blended— Worst comparable value
$1.9667 / 1M
GLM 5.1Winner · Fireworks
Chutes
Speed— Worst comparable value
19.10 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
2.43 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
30.0 tok/s
Uptime
68.60%
Context
202.8K
Route
chutes/fp8
Blended— Best comparable value
$1.68 / 1M
Fireworks
Speed— Best comparable value
11.51 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
1.51 s
TPS— Best comparable value
50.0 tok/s
Uptime
N/a
Context
202.8K
Route
fireworks
Blended— Worst comparable value
$2.4 / 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.

Chutes vs Fireworks analysis

How Chutes and Fireworks compare for AI inference

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

Chutes has 9 indexed models and lists no published server regions; Fireworks has 8 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 Fireworks.

Chutes vs Phala

9 shared model benchmarks

Fireworks vs DeepInfra

8 shared model benchmarks

Chutes vs Venice

9 shared model benchmarks

Fireworks vs NovitaAI

8 shared model benchmarks

Chutes vs SiliconFlow

8 shared model benchmarks

Fireworks vs AtlasCloud

7 shared model benchmarks