Skip to content

Same-model provider benchmark

Chutes vs Inceptron: LLM provider comparison

Compare Chutes and Inceptron 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

Inceptron

4 indexed models

Headquarters
Sweden
Server regions
Finland
Model types
4 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

1.44× typical advantage

3 exact models with complete recent speed data

Lowest token cost

$1.19 / 1M

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

Most models available

9 models

Complete catalog coverage across all indexed modalities

Shared-model benchmark summary

MetricChutes(0)Inceptron(0)
SpeedChutes15.00 sInceptron21.58 s
TTFTChutes1.92 sInceptron0.75 s
TPSChutes37.0 tok/sInceptron24.0 tok/s
UptimeChutes98.29%Inceptron99.18%
BlendedChutes$1.5022 / 1MInceptron$1.19 / 1M
Green value Better comparable resultRed value Worse comparable result

Visual comparison

Price and performance charts

ChutesInceptron
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 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.

Inceptron has the lower typical price ratio across 3 priced shared models.

Shared text models

3 exact models · newest first

ModelChutes(0)Inceptron(0)
GLM 5.2Winner · Inceptron
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— Worst comparable value
$2.4 / 1M
Inceptron
Speed— Worst comparable value
18.40 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
0.55 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
28.0 tok/s
Uptime
95.44%
Context
1M
Route
inceptron/fp4
Blended— Best comparable value
$1.5933 / 1M
Kimi K2.6Winner · Chutes
Chutes
Speed— Best comparable value
18.91 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
2.24 s
TPS— Best comparable value
30.0 tok/s
Uptime— Worst comparable value
96.59%
Context
262.1K
Route
chutes/int4
Blended— Worst comparable value
$1.6067 / 1M
Inceptron
Speed— Worst comparable value
30.60 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
2.82 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
18.0 tok/s
Uptime— Best comparable value
98.39%
Context
262.1K
Route
inceptron/int4
Blended— Best comparable value
$1.5767 / 1M
MiniMax M2.5Winner · Chutes
Chutes
Speed— Best comparable value
15.00 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
1.49 s
TPS— Best comparable value
37.0 tok/s
Uptime— Best comparable value
100.00%
Context
196.6K
Route
chutes/fp8
Blended— Worst comparable value
$0.5 / 1M
Inceptron
Speed— Worst comparable value
21.58 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
0.75 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
24.0 tok/s
Uptime— Worst comparable value
99.96%
Context
196.6K
Route
inceptron/fp8
Blended— Best comparable value
$0.4 / 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 Inceptron analysis

How Chutes and Inceptron compare for AI inference

Chutes and Inceptron share 3 indexed text models, including GLM 5.2, Kimi K2.6, MiniMax M2.5. Chutes 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; Inceptron has 4 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 Inceptron.