Skip to content

Openrouter versus provider llms

Summary of the Query: You are asking about the cost-effectiveness of using OpenRouter compared to using provider LLMs directly. Specifically, you want to know if it is generally more or less cost-effective to use OpenRouter.

Cost Structure of Using OpenRouter

OpenRouter acts as an aggregator for multiple Large Language Models (LLMs) and offers a unified interface for accessing these models. The platform charges fees on top of the base costs of the LLMs, which can make it slightly more expensive than using these models directly from their original providers.

Key Costs Involved with OpenRouter:

  1. Model Usage Fees: Each LLM on OpenRouter has its own pricing structure, similar to when you access these models directly. For example, GPT-4 and Claude models have token-based costs that are comparable to their direct usage prices.
  2. GPT-4 Turbo: $0.01 per 1,000 input tokens and $0.03 per 1,000 output tokens[2].
  3. Claude Opus: $0.015 per 1,000 input tokens and $0.075 per 1,000 output tokens[2].
  4. Platform Fees: OpenRouter applies additional fees on top of the model costs:
  5. For credit card payments via Stripe, OpenRouter charges a fee of 0.6% + $0.03 per transaction[1].
  6. For crypto payments via Coinbase, OpenRouter charges a fee of 4% + $0[1].
  7. Potential Additional Costs: Using OpenRouter may introduce some indirect costs:
  8. Performance Overhead: There may be slight latency when using models through OpenRouter compared to accessing them directly from providers like OpenAI or Anthropic[6].
  9. Convenience Premium: While the prices per token are often similar to direct providers, OpenRouter charges for the convenience of aggregating multiple models and offering a unified API[7].

Direct Provider Costs

When using LLMs directly from providers like OpenAI or Anthropic, you avoid the platform fees imposed by intermediaries like OpenRouter:

  • OpenAI GPT-4 Turbo: $0.03 per 1,000 output tokens and $0.01 per 1,000 input tokens[3].
  • Anthropic Claude Opus: $0.015 per 1,000 input tokens and $0.075 per 1,000 output tokens[2].

Advantages of Direct Usage:

  • Lower Costs: Since there are no intermediary platform fees (like those charged by OpenRouter), direct usage is generally cheaper.
  • Direct Support and Features: Some advanced features or optimizations available directly from providers (e.g., prompt caching or batch processing discounts) may not be accessible through intermediaries like OpenRouter[3].

When is OpenRouter More Cost-Effective?

Despite being slightly more expensive due to platform fees, OpenRouter may still be cost-effective in certain scenarios:

  • Access to Multiple Models: If your use case requires switching between different LLMs frequently (e.g., GPT-4 for one task and Claude for another), using OpenRouter could save time and effort by providing a single API for all models.
  • Unified Billing: Managing billing across multiple providers can be cumbersome; OpenRouter simplifies this by consolidating payments into one system.
  • Experimental Models: Some experimental or niche models might only be available through platforms like OpenRouter rather than directly from providers[1][6].

Conclusion

In general, it is less cost-effective to use OpenRouter compared to accessing LLMs directly due to the additional platform fees (e.g., Stripe or Coinbase transaction fees). However, if you value convenience, access to multiple LLMs through a single interface, or need experimental models that aren't available elsewhere, the slight premium might be worth it.

For users who prioritize minimizing costs and only need access to one specific model (like GPT-4), it is likely more cost-effective to go directly through the provider.