CoreWeave vs NovitaAI: LLM provider comparison

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

CCoreWeave

1.85× typical advantage

14 exact models with complete recent speed data

Lowest token cost

NNovitaAI

$0.8279 / 1M

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

Most models available

NNovitaAI

67 models

Complete catalog coverage across all indexed modalities

Shared-model benchmark summary

Metric	CCoreWeave☆☆☆☆☆(0)	NNovitaAI☆☆☆☆☆(0)
Speed	CoreWeave8.20 s	NovitaAI15.74 s
TTFT	CoreWeave0.37 s	NovitaAI1.51 s
TPS	CoreWeave66.0 tok/s	NovitaAI37.5 tok/s
Uptime	CoreWeave99.96%	NovitaAI99.74%
Blended	CoreWeave$1.0838 / 1M	NovitaAI$0.8279 / 1M

Model	CCoreWeave☆☆☆☆☆(0)	NNovitaAI☆☆☆☆☆(0)
ZA GLM 5.2Winner · NovitaAI	CoreWeave Speed— Best comparable value 20.46 s TTFT— Best comparable value 1.94 s TPS— Best comparable value 27.0 tok/s Uptime— Best comparable value 99.96% Context 262.1K Route coreweave/fp4 Blended— Worst comparable value $2.3933 / 1M	NovitaAI Speed— Worst comparable value 24.01 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 3.18 s TPS— Worst comparable value 24.0 tok/s Uptime— Worst comparable value 99.15% Context 1M Route novita/fp8 Blended— Best comparable value $1.3488 / 1M
M Kimi K2.7 CodeWinner · CoreWeave	CoreWeave Speed— Best comparable value 7.35 s TTFT— Best comparable value 0.68 s TPS— Best comparable value 75.0 tok/s Uptime 100.00% Context 262.1K Route coreweave/int4 Blended— Worst comparable value $1.96 / 1M	NovitaAI Speed— Worst comparable value 25.11 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 4.28 s TPS— Worst comparable value 24.0 tok/s Uptime 100.00% Context 262.1K Route novita/int4 Blended— Best comparable value $1.888 / 1M
D DeepSeek V4 ProWinner · NovitaAI	CoreWeave Speed— Worst comparable value 64.00 s TTFT— Best comparable value 1.50 s TPS— Worst comparable value 8.0 tok/s Uptime— Worst comparable value 98.59% Context 1M Route coreweave/fp8 Blended— Worst comparable value $2.32 / 1M	NovitaAI Speed— Best comparable value 10.32 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 1.70 s TPS— Best comparable value 58.0 tok/s Uptime— Best comparable value 99.91% Context 1M Route novita/fp8 Blended— Best comparable value $1.5573 / 1M
D DeepSeek V4 FlashWinner · NovitaAI	CoreWeave Speed— Worst comparable value 17.27 s TTFT— Best comparable value 0.60 s TPS— Worst comparable value 30.0 tok/s Uptime— Worst comparable value 99.85% Context 1M Route coreweave/fp8 Blended $0.1867 / 1M	NovitaAI Speed— Best comparable value 9.75 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 1.28 s TPS— Best comparable value 59.0 tok/s Uptime— Best comparable value 99.95% Context 1M Route novita/fp8 Blended $0.1867 / 1M
M Kimi K2.6Winner · CoreWeave	CoreWeave Speed— Best comparable value 3.30 s TTFT— Best comparable value 0.34 s TPS— Best comparable value 169.0 tok/s Uptime— Best comparable value 99.89% Context 262.1K Route coreweave/fp4 Blended— Worst comparable value $1.9667 / 1M	NovitaAI Speed— Worst comparable value 18.58 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 1.34 s TPS— Worst comparable value 29.0 tok/s Uptime— Worst comparable value 99.28% Context 262.1K Route novita Blended— Best comparable value $1.6667 / 1M
ZA GLM 5.1Winner · CoreWeave	CoreWeave Speed— Best comparable value 4.38 s TTFT— Best comparable value 0.50 s TPS— Best comparable value 129.0 tok/s Uptime— Best comparable value 100.00% Context 202.8K Route coreweave/fp8 Blended— Worst comparable value $2.4 / 1M	NovitaAI Speed— Worst comparable value 12.93 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 2.06 s TPS— Worst comparable value 46.0 tok/s Uptime— Worst comparable value 99.74% Context 204.8K Route novita/fp8 Blended— Best comparable value $2.3867 / 1M
G Gemma 4 31BWinner · CoreWeave	CoreWeave Speed— Best comparable value 30.82 s TTFT— Best comparable value 1.41 s TPS— Best comparable value 17.0 tok/s Uptime— Best comparable value 77.67% Context 262.1K Route coreweave/bf16 Blended— Best comparable value $0.1967 / 1M	NovitaAI Speed— Worst comparable value 252.81 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 2.81 s TPS— Worst comparable value 2.0 tok/s Uptime— Worst comparable value 68.44% Context 262.1K Route novita/bf16 Blended— Worst comparable value $0.2267 / 1M
M MiniMax M2.5Winner · CoreWeave	CoreWeave Speed— Best comparable value 6.55 s TTFT— Best comparable value 0.38 s TPS— Best comparable value 81.0 tok/s Uptime— Best comparable value 100.00% Context 196.6K Route coreweave/fp8 Blended $0.6 / 1M	NovitaAI Speed— Worst comparable value 10.04 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 1.27 s TPS— Worst comparable value 57.0 tok/s Uptime— Worst comparable value 99.53% Context 204.8K Route novita/fp8 Blended $0.6 / 1M
D DeepSeek V3.1Winner · CoreWeave	CoreWeave Speed— Best comparable value 9.97 s TTFT— Best comparable value 0.35 s TPS— Best comparable value 52.0 tok/s Uptime 100.00% Context 161K Route coreweave/fp8 Blended— Worst comparable value $0.9167 / 1M	NovitaAI Speed— Worst comparable value 24.41 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 1.68 s TPS— Worst comparable value 22.0 tok/s Uptime 100.00% Context 131.1K Route novita/fp8 Blended— Best comparable value $0.5133 / 1M
O gpt-oss-120bWinner · CoreWeave	CoreWeave Speed— Worst comparable value 5.92 s TTFT— Best comparable value 0.36 s TPS— Worst comparable value 90.0 tok/s Uptime— Worst comparable value 99.68% Context 131.1K Route coreweave/fp4 Blended— Best comparable value $0.0733 / 1M	NovitaAI Speed— Best comparable value 5.30 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 0.44 s TPS— Best comparable value 103.0 tok/s Uptime— Best comparable value 99.99% Context 131.1K Route novita/fp4 Blended— Worst comparable value $0.1167 / 1M
O gpt-oss-20bWinner · CoreWeave	CoreWeave Speed— Best comparable value 4.18 s TTFT— Best comparable value 0.28 s TPS— Best comparable value 128.0 tok/s Uptime— Best comparable value 87.61% Context 131.1K Route coreweave/fp4 Blended— Best comparable value $0.0633 / 1M	NovitaAI Speed— Worst comparable value 8.24 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 0.43 s TPS— Worst comparable value 64.0 tok/s Uptime— Worst comparable value 78.49% Context 131.1K Route novita/fp4 Blended— Worst comparable value $0.0767 / 1M
Q Qwen3 Coder 480B A35BWinner · CoreWeave	CoreWeave Speed— Best comparable value 9.06 s TTFT— Best comparable value 0.29 s TPS— Best comparable value 57.0 tok/s Uptime N/a Context 262.1K Route coreweave/bf16 Blended— Worst comparable value $1.1667 / 1M	NovitaAI Speed— Worst comparable value 28.13 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 1.81 s TPS— Worst comparable value 19.0 tok/s Uptime 100.00% Context 262.1K Route novita/fp8 Blended— Best comparable value $0.77 / 1M
ML Llama 3.3 70B InstructWinner · NovitaAI	CoreWeave Speed— Best comparable value 18.01 s TTFT— Best comparable value 0.15 s TPS 28.0 tok/s Uptime— Best comparable value 100.00% Context 128K Route coreweave/fp16 Blended— Worst comparable value $0.71 / 1M	NovitaAI Speed— Worst comparable value 18.54 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 0.69 s TPS 28.0 tok/s Uptime— Worst comparable value 31.79% Context 6K Route novita/bf16 Blended— Best comparable value $0.2233 / 1M
ML Llama 3.1 8B InstructWinner · NovitaAI	CoreWeave Speed— Best comparable value 4.63 s TTFT— Best comparable value 0.17 s TPS— Best comparable value 112.0 tok/s Uptime— Best comparable value 100.00% Context 128K Route coreweave/bf16 Blended— Worst comparable value $0.22 / 1M	NovitaAI Speed— Worst comparable value 8.04 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 0.47 s TPS— Worst comparable value 66.0 tok/s Uptime— Worst comparable value 100.00% Context 16.4K Route novita/fp8 Blended— Best comparable value $0.03 / 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 Jul 24, 2026, 6:19 PM UTC. Values use one deterministic route per provider and model; missing measurements remain visible as N/a.