Skip to content
ProviderBench home

Same-model provider benchmark

Chutes vs Parasail: LLM provider comparison

Compare Chutes and Parasail on 6 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

Parasail

35 indexed models

Headquarters
United States
Server regions
N/a
Model types
34 text, 1 embeddings

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

Parasail

2.13× typical advantage

6 exact models with complete recent speed data

Lowest token cost

Chutes

$1.1289 / 1M

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

Most models available

Parasail

35 models

Complete catalog coverage across all indexed modalities

Shared-model benchmark summary

MetricChutesParasail
Typical 500-token response27.01 s12.64 s
Typical response start3.61 s1.13 s
Typical output speed26.0 tok/s47.0 tok/s
Blended token price$1.1289 / 1M$1.3611 / 1M
Typical route uptime81.12%90.21%

Visual comparison

Price and performance charts

ChutesParasail
500-token response by shared model

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

Parasail has the lower typical same-model response ratio across 6 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 6 priced shared models.

Shared text models

6 exact models · newest first

ModelChutesParasail
Kimi K2.6Winner · Parasail

moonshotai/kimi-k2.6

Chutes
Blended price
$1.6067 / 1M
500-token response
31.19 s
Response starts
4.88 s
Output speed
19.0 tok/s
Route uptime
98.67%
Context
262.1K
Route
chutes/int4
Parasail
Blended price
$1.6667 / 1M
500-token response
16.21 s
Response starts
1.50 s
Output speed
34.0 tok/s
Route uptime
99.45%
Context
262.1K
Route
parasail/int4
GLM 5.1Winner · Parasail

z-ai/glm-5.1

Chutes
Blended price
$1.68 / 1M
500-token response
38.05 s
Response starts
18.05 s
Output speed
25.0 tok/s
Route uptime
63.57%
Context
202.8K
Route
chutes/fp8
Parasail
Blended price
$2.4 / 1M
500-token response
8.43 s
Response starts
2.18 s
Output speed
80.0 tok/s
Route uptime
85.33%
Context
202.8K
Route
parasail/fp8
Gemma 4 31BWinner · Parasail

google/gemma-4-31b-it

Chutes
Blended price
$0.2033 / 1M
500-token response
52.91 s
Response starts
2.91 s
Output speed
10.0 tok/s
Route uptime
57.68%
Context
131.1K
Route
chutes/fp4
Parasail
Blended price
$0.2333 / 1M
500-token response
29.80 s
Response starts
2.03 s
Output speed
18.0 tok/s
Route uptime
92.85%
Context
262.1K
Route
parasail/fp8
Qwen3.5 397B A17BWinner · Parasail

qwen/qwen3.5-397b-a17b

Chutes
Blended price
$1.3 / 1M
500-token response
21.17 s
Response starts
2.65 s
Output speed
27.0 tok/s
Route uptime
99.94%
Context
262.1K
Route
chutes/fp8
Parasail
Blended price
$1.5333 / 1M
500-token response
9.08 s
Response starts
0.75 s
Output speed
60.0 tok/s
Route uptime
87.58%
Context
262.1K
Route
parasail/fp8
MiniMax M2.5Winner · Parasail

minimax/minimax-m2.5

Chutes
Blended price
$0.5 / 1M
500-token response
14.83 s
Response starts
1.68 s
Output speed
38.0 tok/s
Route uptime
83.43%
Context
196.6K
Route
chutes/fp8
Parasail
Blended price
$0.6 / 1M
500-token response
5.17 s
Response starts
0.61 s
Output speed
109.5 tok/s
Route uptime
N/a
Context
196.6K
Route
parasail/fp8
GLM 5Winner · Chutes

z-ai/glm-5

Chutes
Blended price
$1.4833 / 1M
500-token response
22.84 s
Response starts
4.32 s
Output speed
27.0 tok/s
Route uptime
N/a
Context
202.8K
Route
chutes/fp8
Parasail
Blended price
$1.7333 / 1M
500-token response
19.93 s
Response starts
0.70 s
Output speed
26.0 tok/s
Route uptime
99.15%
Context
202.8K
Route
parasail/fp8

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 Parasail analysis

How Chutes and Parasail compare for AI inference

Chutes and Parasail share 6 indexed text models, including Kimi K2.6, GLM 5.1, Gemma 4 31B, Qwen3.5 397B A17B, MiniMax M2.5. Parasail has the stronger typical response-time result on the directly measured set.

Same-model speed evidence

6 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

6 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; Parasail has 35 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 Parasail.

Chutes vs DeepInfra

8 shared model benchmarks

Parasail vs NovitaAI

22 shared model benchmarks

Chutes vs Phala

8 shared model benchmarks

Parasail vs Venice

18 shared model benchmarks

Chutes vs SiliconFlow

7 shared model benchmarks

Parasail vs AtlasCloud

13 shared model benchmarks