Skip to content

Same-model provider benchmark

Chutes vs Morph: LLM provider comparison

Compare Chutes and Morph 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

Morph

8 indexed models

Headquarters
United States
Server regions
United States
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

1.22× typical advantage

3 exact models with complete recent speed data

Lowest token cost

$1.1064 / 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)Morph(0)
SpeedChutes57.08 sMorph46.97 s
TTFTChutes2.28 sMorph1.51 s
TPSChutes10.0 tok/sMorph11.0 tok/s
UptimeChutes72.16%Morph97.70%
BlendedChutes$1.1567 / 1MMorph$1.1064 / 1M
Green value Better comparable resultRed value Worse comparable result

Visual comparison

Price and performance charts

ChutesMorph
500-token response by shared model

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

Morph 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.

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

Shared text models

3 exact models · newest first

ModelChutes(0)Morph(0)
GLM 5.2Winner · Morph
Chutes
Speed— Worst comparable value
27.25 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
2.25 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
20.0 tok/s
Uptime— Worst comparable value
90.42%
Context
1M
Route
chutes/fp4
Blended— Worst comparable value
$2.4 / 1M
Morph
Speed— Best comparable value
11.46 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
1.25 s
TPS— Best comparable value
49.0 tok/s
Uptime— Best comparable value
98.75%
Context
1M
Route
morph
Blended— Best comparable value
$2.1 / 1M
Qwen3.6 27BWinner · Morph
Chutes
Speed— Worst comparable value
57.08 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
7.08 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
10.0 tok/s
Uptime— Best comparable value
40.25%
Context
262.1K
Route
chutes/fp8
Blended— Best comparable value
$0.8667 / 1M
Morph
Speed— Best comparable value
46.97 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
1.51 s
TPS— Best comparable value
11.0 tok/s
Uptime— Worst comparable value
1.02%
Context
131.1K
Route
morph
Blended— Worst comparable value
$0.9927 / 1M
Gemma 4 31BWinner · Chutes
Chutes
Speed— Best comparable value
73.71 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
2.28 s
TPS— Best comparable value
7.0 tok/s
Uptime— Worst comparable value
72.16%
Context
131.1K
Route
chutes/fp4
Blended— Best comparable value
$0.2033 / 1M
Morph
Speed— Worst comparable value
102.35 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
2.35 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
5.0 tok/s
Uptime— Best comparable value
97.70%
Context
175K
Route
morph/fp4
Blended— Worst comparable value
$0.2267 / 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 Morph analysis

How Chutes and Morph compare for AI inference

Chutes and Morph share 3 indexed text models, including GLM 5.2, Qwen3.6 27B, Gemma 4 31B. Morph 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; Morph has 8 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 Morph.