Skip to content
ProviderBench home

Same-model provider benchmark

Chutes vs StreamLake: LLM provider comparison

Compare Chutes and StreamLake 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

StreamLake

20 indexed models

Headquarters
China
Server regions
N/a
Model types
20 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

StreamLake

1.43× typical advantage

6 exact models with complete recent speed data

Lowest token cost

Chutes

$1.255 / 1M

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

Most models available

StreamLake

20 models

Complete catalog coverage across all indexed modalities

Shared-model benchmark summary

MetricChutesStreamLake
Typical 500-token response22.08 s19.04 s
Typical response start3.48 s3.06 s
Typical output speed26.0 tok/s30.5 tok/s
Blended token price$1.255 / 1M$1.311 / 1M
Typical route uptime95.23%97.35%

Visual comparison

Price and performance charts

ChutesStreamLake
500-token response by shared model

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

StreamLake 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

ModelChutesStreamLake
Kimi K2.6Winner · StreamLake

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
StreamLake
Blended price
$1.77 / 1M
500-token response
23.14 s
Response starts
3.91 s
Output speed
26.0 tok/s
Route uptime
97.94%
Context
256K
Route
streamlake/fp8
GLM 5.1Winner · StreamLake

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
StreamLake
Blended price
$1.656 / 1M
500-token response
25.14 s
Response starts
2.42 s
Output speed
22.0 tok/s
Route uptime
96.76%
Context
200K
Route
streamlake/fp8
Qwen3.5 397B A17BWinner · StreamLake

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
StreamLake
Blended price
$1.6 / 1M
500-token response
9.66 s
Response starts
3.70 s
Output speed
84.0 tok/s
Route uptime
93.14%
Context
256K
Route
streamlake
MiniMax M2.5Winner · StreamLake

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
StreamLake
Blended price
$0.54 / 1M
500-token response
6.53 s
Response starts
0.72 s
Output speed
86.0 tok/s
Route uptime
N/a
Context
200K
Route
streamlake
GLM 5Winner · StreamLake

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
StreamLake
Blended price
$1.04 / 1M
500-token response
20.53 s
Response starts
3.87 s
Output speed
30.0 tok/s
Route uptime
99.48%
Context
198K
Route
streamlake/fp8
Kimi K2.5Winner · Chutes

moonshotai/kimi-k2.5

Chutes
Blended price
$0.96 / 1M
500-token response
21.33 s
Response starts
1.33 s
Output speed
25.0 tok/s
Route uptime
91.79%
Context
262.1K
Route
chutes/int4
StreamLake
Blended price
$1.26 / 1M
500-token response
17.54 s
Response starts
1.41 s
Output speed
31.0 tok/s
Route uptime
100.00%
Context
256K
Route
streamlake/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 StreamLake analysis

How Chutes and StreamLake compare for AI inference

Chutes and StreamLake share 6 indexed text models, including Kimi K2.6, GLM 5.1, Qwen3.5 397B A17B, MiniMax M2.5, GLM 5. StreamLake 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; StreamLake has 20 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 StreamLake.

Chutes vs DeepInfra

8 shared model benchmarks

StreamLake vs NovitaAI

16 shared model benchmarks

Chutes vs Phala

8 shared model benchmarks

StreamLake vs AtlasCloud

14 shared model benchmarks

Chutes vs Venice

8 shared model benchmarks

StreamLake vs SiliconFlow

12 shared model benchmarks