Skip to content
ProviderBench home

Same-model provider benchmark

Crusoe vs Phala: LLM provider comparison

Compare Crusoe and Phala on 3 exact shared text models. ProviderBench keeps speed, price, and catalog coverage separate so naturally faster model catalogs cannot distort the result.

Crusoe

7 indexed models

Headquarters
United States
Server regions
N/a
Model types
7 text

Phala

18 indexed models

Headquarters
United States
Server regions
N/a
Model types
18 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

Phala

2.03× typical advantage

3 exact models with complete recent speed data

Lowest token cost

Crusoe

$1.3756 / 1M

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

Most models available

Phala

18 models

Complete catalog coverage across all indexed modalities

Shared-model benchmark summary

MetricCrusoe(0)Phala(0)
SpeedCrusoe34.64 sPhala27.24 s
TTFTCrusoe0.83 sPhala2.25 s
TPSCrusoe15.0 tok/sPhala22.0 tok/s
UptimeCrusoe73.56%Phala92.65%
BlendedCrusoe$1.3756 / 1MPhala$1.5733 / 1M
Green value Better comparable resultRed value Worse comparable result

Visual comparison

Price and performance charts

CrusoePhala
500-token response by shared model

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

Phala 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.

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

Shared text models

3 exact models · newest first

ModelCrusoe(0)Phala(0)
Kimi K2.6Winner · Phala
Crusoe
Speed— Worst comparable value
34.64 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
1.31 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
15.0 tok/s
Uptime— Worst comparable value
56.00%
Context
262.1K
Route
crusoe/bf16
Blended— Best comparable value
$1.6333 / 1M
Phala
Speed— Best comparable value
17.11 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
1.48 s
TPS— Best comparable value
32.0 tok/s
Uptime— Best comparable value
99.50%
Context
262.1K
Route
phala
Blended— Worst comparable value
$2.26 / 1M
GLM 5.1Winner · Crusoe
Crusoe
Speed— Best comparable value
5.89 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
0.39 s
TPS— Best comparable value
91.0 tok/s
Uptime
100.00%
Context
202.8K
Route
crusoe/fp8
Blended— Worst comparable value
$2.2667 / 1M
Phala
Speed— Worst comparable value
27.24 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
4.51 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
22.0 tok/s
Uptime
N/a
Context
202.8K
Route
phala
Blended— Best comparable value
$2.2067 / 1M
Gemma 4 31BWinner · Phala
Crusoe
Speed— Worst comparable value
84.17 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
0.83 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
6.0 tok/s
Uptime— Best comparable value
91.12%
Context
262.1K
Route
crusoe
Blended— Best comparable value
$0.2267 / 1M
Phala
Speed— Best comparable value
30.03 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
2.25 s
TPS— Best comparable value
18.0 tok/s
Uptime— Worst comparable value
85.80%
Context
262.1K
Route
phala
Blended— Worst comparable value
$0.2533 / 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.

Crusoe vs Phala analysis

How Crusoe and Phala compare for AI inference

Crusoe and Phala share 3 indexed text models, including Kimi K2.6, GLM 5.1, Gemma 4 31B. Phala 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

Crusoe has 7 indexed models and lists no published server regions; Phala has 18 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 Crusoe and Phala.

Crusoe vs DeepInfra

6 shared model benchmarks

Phala vs NovitaAI

14 shared model benchmarks

Crusoe vs Parasail

5 shared model benchmarks

Phala vs SiliconFlow

13 shared model benchmarks

Crusoe vs CoreWeave

4 shared model benchmarks

Phala vs Venice

11 shared model benchmarks