Skip to content
ProviderBench home

Same-model provider benchmark

Chutes vs Together: LLM provider comparison

Compare Chutes and Together 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

Together

22 indexed models

Headquarters
United States
Server regions
N/a
Model types
18 text, 2 speech, 2 transcription

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

Together

2.74× typical advantage

3 exact models with complete recent speed data

Lowest token cost

Chutes

$1.4033 / 1M

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

Most models available

Together

22 models

Complete catalog coverage across all indexed modalities

Shared-model benchmark summary

MetricChutes(0)Together(0)
SpeedChutes18.91 sTogether10.21 s
TTFTChutes1.92 sTogether0.59 s
TPSChutes30.0 tok/sTogether52.0 tok/s
UptimeChutes97.42%Together91.73%
BlendedChutes$1.4033 / 1MTogether$1.7244 / 1M
Green value Better comparable resultRed value Worse comparable result

Visual comparison

Price and performance charts

ChutesTogether
500-token response by shared model

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

Together 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.

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

Shared text models

3 exact models · newest first

ModelChutes(0)Together(0)
GLM 5.2Winner · Together
Chutes
Speed— Worst 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
Together
Speed— Best comparable value
12.25 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
0.89 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
44.0 tok/s
Uptime
99.66%
Context
262.1K
Route
together
Blended
$2.4 / 1M
Kimi K2.6Winner · Together
Chutes
Speed— Worst comparable value
18.91 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
2.24 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
30.0 tok/s
Uptime— Worst comparable value
96.59%
Context
262.1K
Route
chutes/int4
Blended— Best comparable value
$1.6067 / 1M
Together
Speed— Best comparable value
4.32 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
0.50 s
TPS— Best comparable value
131.0 tok/s
Uptime— Best comparable value
96.74%
Context
262.1K
Route
together
Blended— Worst comparable value
$2.3 / 1M
Gemma 4 31BWinner · Together
Chutes
Speed— Worst comparable value
28.00 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
1.69 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
19.0 tok/s
Uptime— Best comparable value
98.26%
Context
131.1K
Route
chutes/fp4
Blended— Best comparable value
$0.2033 / 1M
Together
Speed— Best comparable value
10.21 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
0.59 s
TPS— Best comparable value
52.0 tok/s
Uptime— Worst comparable value
86.71%
Context
262.1K
Route
together
Blended— Worst comparable value
$0.4733 / 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 Together analysis

How Chutes and Together compare for AI inference

Chutes and Together share 3 indexed text models, including GLM 5.2, Kimi K2.6, Gemma 4 31B. Together 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; Together has 22 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 Together.

Chutes vs Phala

9 shared model benchmarks

Together vs DeepInfra

13 shared model benchmarks

Chutes vs Venice

9 shared model benchmarks

Together vs NovitaAI

10 shared model benchmarks

Chutes vs SiliconFlow

8 shared model benchmarks

Together vs Parasail

10 shared model benchmarks