An honest, factual comparison. Both are valid choices for different needs.
| Feature | openrout.ing | OpenRouter |
|---|---|---|
| Model selection | 26,116+ models only | 400+ models incl. closed (GPT, Claude, Gemini) |
| Pricing | Pure PAYG per-model rates (from £2e-07/M) | Pay-per-token, varies per model/provider |
| Logging | Zero logging, zero telemetry | Standard logging, no training on prompts |
| 429 rate limits | Zero 429 (Redis-infinite queue) | Provider-dependent |
| API format | OpenAI-compatible | OpenAI-compatible |
| Agents built-in | Pay-as-you-go billing, no subscriptions | No agent layer |
| Coalition fallback | 41 mappings, auto-fallback on busy models | Provider fallbacks on some models |
| Best for | Privacy-first, predictable costs, heavy open-source usage, agents | Needing closed frontier models, flexible per-token billing |
Choose openrout.ing for open-source-only inference, privacy and predictable pay-as-you-go billing. Choose OpenRouter when you need closed frontier models. Sources: llms.txt, openrouter.ai.