Skip to content
ProviderBench home

Same-model provider benchmark

Chutes vs GMICloud: LLM provider comparison

Compare Chutes and GMICloud on 4 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

GMICloud

15 indexed models

Headquarters
United States
Server regions
United States
Model types
15 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

GMICloud

1.53× typical advantage

3 exact models with complete recent speed data

Lowest token cost

GMICloud

$1.68 / 1M

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

Most models available

GMICloud

15 models

Complete catalog coverage across all indexed modalities

Shared-model benchmark summary

MetricChutes(0)GMICloud(0)
SpeedChutes19.10 sGMICloud12.51 s
TTFTChutes2.43 sGMICloud1.86 s
TPSChutes30.0 tok/sGMICloud53.0 tok/s
UptimeChutes68.60%GMICloud99.55%
BlendedChutes$1.7158 / 1MGMICloud$1.68 / 1M
Green value Better comparable resultRed value Worse comparable result

Visual comparison

Price and performance charts

ChutesGMICloud
500-token response by shared model

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

GMICloud 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.

GMICloud has the lower typical price ratio across 4 priced shared models.

Shared text models

4 exact models · newest first

ModelChutes(0)GMICloud(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
GMICloud
Speed— Worst comparable value
16.15 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
1.86 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
35.0 tok/s
Uptime
99.01%
Context
1M
Route
gmicloud/fp8
Blended
$2.4 / 1M
GLM 5.1Winner · GMICloud
Chutes
Speed— Worst comparable value
19.10 s
TTFT— Best 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
$1.68 / 1M
GMICloud
Speed— Best comparable value
12.51 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
3.08 s
TPS— Best comparable value
53.0 tok/s
Uptime— Best comparable value
99.55%
Context
202.8K
Route
gmicloud/fp8
Blended
$1.68 / 1M
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Chutes
Speed
33.94 s
TTFT
6.16 s
TPS
18.0 tok/s
Uptime
90.94%
Context
262.1K
Route
chutes/fp8
Blended— Best comparable value
$1.3 / 1M
GMICloud
Speed
N/a
TTFT
N/a
TPS
N/a
Uptime
N/a
Context
262.1K
Route
gmicloud/fp8
Blended— Worst comparable value
$1.6 / 1M
GLM 5Winner · GMICloud
Chutes
Speed— Worst comparable value
51.39 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
5.93 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
11.0 tok/s
Uptime
N/a
Context
202.8K
Route
chutes/fp8
Blended— Worst comparable value
$1.4833 / 1M
GMICloud
Speed— Best comparable value
9.69 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
1.36 s
TPS— Best comparable value
60.0 tok/s
Uptime
100.00%
Context
202.8K
Route
gmicloud/fp8
Blended— Best comparable value
$1.04 / 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 GMICloud analysis

How Chutes and GMICloud compare for AI inference

Chutes and GMICloud share 4 indexed text models, including GLM 5.2, GLM 5.1, Qwen3.5 397B A17B, GLM 5. GMICloud 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

4 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; GMICloud has 15 models and lists 1 region. 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 GMICloud.

Chutes vs Phala

9 shared model benchmarks

GMICloud vs DeepInfra

9 shared model benchmarks

Chutes vs Venice

9 shared model benchmarks

GMICloud vs AtlasCloud

9 shared model benchmarks

Chutes vs NovitaAI

8 shared model benchmarks

GMICloud vs SiliconFlow

7 shared model benchmarks