Skip to content
ProviderBench home

Same-model provider benchmark

Chutes vs Friendli: LLM provider comparison

Compare Chutes and Friendli on 3 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

Friendli

6 indexed models

Headquarters
United States
Server regions
N/a
Model types
6 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

Friendli

4.00× typical advantage

3 exact models with complete recent speed data

Lowest token cost

Chutes

$0.7944 / 1M

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

Most models available

Chutes

8 models

Complete catalog coverage across all indexed modalities

Shared-model benchmark summary

MetricChutes(0)Friendli(0)
Typical 500-token response21.16 s5.29 s
Typical response start1.81 s0.43 s
Typical output speed28.0 tok/s100.0 tok/s
Blended token price$0.7944 / 1M$1.0756 / 1M
Typical route uptime55.86%99.98%

Visual comparison

Price and performance charts

ChutesFriendli
500-token response by shared model

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

Friendli 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)Friendli(0)
GLM 5.1Winner · Friendli

z-ai/glm-5.1

Chutes
Blended price
$1.68 / 1M
500-token response
21.16 s
Response starts
3.30 s
Output speed
28.0 tok/s
Route uptime
23.53%
Context
202.8K
Route
chutes/fp8
Friendli
Blended price
$2.4 / 1M
500-token response
5.29 s
Response starts
0.29 s
Output speed
100.0 tok/s
Route uptime
100.00%
Context
202.8K
Route
friendli
Gemma 4 31BWinner · Friendli

google/gemma-4-31b-it

Chutes
Blended price
$0.2033 / 1M
500-token response
37.53 s
Response starts
1.81 s
Output speed
14.0 tok/s
Route uptime
88.20%
Context
131.1K
Route
chutes/fp4
Friendli
Blended price
$0.2267 / 1M
500-token response
6.57 s
Response starts
0.96 s
Output speed
89.0 tok/s
Route uptime
99.97%
Context
262.1K
Route
friendli
MiniMax M2.5Winner · Friendli

minimax/minimax-m2.5

Chutes
Blended price
$0.5 / 1M
500-token response
13.79 s
Response starts
1.59 s
Output speed
41.0 tok/s
Route uptime
N/a
Context
196.6K
Route
chutes/fp8
Friendli
Blended price
$0.6 / 1M
500-token response
4.06 s
Response starts
0.43 s
Output speed
138.0 tok/s
Route uptime
N/a
Context
196.6K
Route
friendli

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 Friendli analysis

How Chutes and Friendli compare for AI inference

Chutes and Friendli share 3 indexed text models, including GLM 5.1, Gemma 4 31B, MiniMax M2.5. Friendli 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 8 indexed models and lists no published server regions; Friendli has 6 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 Friendli.

Chutes vs DeepInfra

8 shared model benchmarks

Friendli vs NovitaAI

6 shared model benchmarks

Chutes vs Phala

8 shared model benchmarks

Friendli vs Venice

6 shared model benchmarks

Chutes vs SiliconFlow

7 shared model benchmarks

Friendli vs AtlasCloud

5 shared model benchmarks