LLM Gateway vs one-api
Side-by-side comparison of features, pricing, ratings, and alternatives.
LLM Gateway is a unified API gateway for multiple LLM providers. It lets developers route requests across 200+ models from 40+ providers through a single OpenAI-compatible endpoint, with built-in analytics, cost tracking, secure key management, automatic failover, and self-hosted or cloud deployment options.
one-api is an LLM API management and key redistribution system that supports multiple providers under a single API. It provides a unified interface for managing keys and redistributing them to various applications. The system is designed to be easy to use and deploy, with a single binary and Docker-ready architecture.
Bring your own keys — free forever; no credit card required and setup in 30 seconds.
- Drop-in OpenAI SDK compatibility — just change the base URL
- Free 'Bring Your Own Keys' tier with no token markup
- Free self-hosted option under AGPLv3
- Real-time cost, latency, and reliability analytics
- Unified API for multiple LLM providers
- Easy to use and deploy
- Single binary and Docker-ready architecture
- Supports multiple models
- AGPLv3 license may be restrictive for some commercial use cases
- Smaller model catalog than some competitors like OpenRouter
- Self-hosting requires infrastructure maintenance
- Enterprise features likely require a custom paid plan
- Limited documentation
- Limited support options
- Limited customization options
More alternatives & similar tools
Alternatives to LLM Gateway
View all →
The Verdict
AI-generated from listing dataBoth tools are free and self‑hostable, but one‑api (A) is simpler to deploy, while LLM Gateway (B) offers richer analytics, security controls, and enterprise features.
Key differences
- •Deployment simplicity: A ships as a single binary/Docker image; B requires more setup for self‑hosting or cloud.
- •Analytics & guardrails: B provides real‑time cost, latency, reliability dashboards and prompt‑injection/PII detection; A does not.
- •Provider coverage: A explicitly lists Chinese models (ChatGLM, ERNIE, etc.); B lists 40+ providers but does not specify Chinese support.
- •Licensing: A is open source with no license restriction mentioned; B uses AGPLv3, which may limit commercial use.
- •Enterprise add‑ons: B offers SSO, white‑labeling, audit logs, and custom SLAs; A only offers community support.
Pricing & value
Both are free for BYOK/self‑hosted use; no paid tier required for core functionality.
Ease of use / learning curve
A provides a single executable and Docker image for one‑command deployment; B needs more infrastructure setup.
Features & depth
B includes analytics, failover monitoring, guardrails, SSO, and audit logs; A offers only basic key management.
Integrations & ecosystem
B supports 40+ providers and 200+ models; A lists major global and Chinese providers but fewer overall.
Support
Both rely on community channels (GitHub Issues, forum); B adds optional enterprise support not covered in free tier.
Security & privacy
B mentions secure key management, SSO, and prompt‑injection/PII guardrails; A only mentions key redistribution.
Scalability
B reports routing >100B tokens and offers managed cloud deployment; A has no scalability metrics provided.
Choose LLM Gateway if…
Organizations that want detailed cost/latency monitoring, security guardrails, and enterprise‑grade controls.
Choose one-api if…
Teams needing quick, minimal‑setup LLM access, especially with Chinese models, and no advanced analytics.
Common questions
Is there any cost to use either product?
Both are free for self‑hosted BYOK use; B offers optional paid cloud or enterprise plans, A has no paid tier.
Which tool supports Chinese LLM providers?
A explicitly lists Chinese models (ChatGLM, ERNIE, Spark, Qwen, Hunyuan); B does not specify Chinese providers.
Can I get real‑time usage and cost analytics?
Yes, B provides real‑time cost, latency, and reliability dashboards; A does not include such analytics.