LLM Gateway
One API for 40+ providers, including OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google
Alternatives
Choose one-api if…
- you need a single executable to ship across environments
- you rely on Chinese LLM providers such as ChatGLM or ERNIE
- you prefer a bilingual dashboard for English‑Chinese teams
- you want a free, Docker‑ready solution without enterprise
Choose Manifest if…
- you need automatic repair of broken LLM requests
- you run local models like Ollama or llama.cpp
- you want visual cost breakdown per agent and provider
- you prefer a self‑hosted open‑source gateway with community
Choose Text Generator if…
- you need automatic model selection per request
- you want a single credit balance instead of multiple API
- you require unlimited chat usage without per‑model limits
- you prefer a paid subscription over self‑hosting
Choose UsageGuard if…
- you must meet SOC 2 or GDPR requirements
- you need an on‑premise or air‑gapped deployment
- you want dedicated 24/7 enterprise support with SLAs
- you require per‑team security policies and spend budgets
- you can tolerate a modest 50‑100 ms proxy latency
Choose LiteLLM if…
- you need niche or newly released models not in the Gateway
- you want automatic routing to the cheapest or
- you must enforce per‑user or per‑project spend limits
- your organization already uses SSO and wants it baked into
How to Decide
LLM Gateway is known for offering a free, bring‑your‑own‑keys API that unifies 40+ providers with OpenAI‑compatible endpoints and enterprise‑grade analytics, and is used by developers, AI teams, startups, and enterprises building LLM‑powered applications. The alternatives split into a few clear camps: one‑api leans on a single‑binary, Docker‑ready self‑hosted deployment; Manifest differentiates with its Autofix capability that repairs failing LLM requests on the fly; Text Generator stands out for automatic model selection per request with built‑in provider fallbacks; UsageGuard is chosen for its enterprise‑grade security and compliance stack (SOC 2 Type II, GDPR) plus centralized spend controls; LiteLLM is selected for dynamic routing rules based on latency or cost and built‑in SSO integration.
When comparing these options, the most decisive factors are: pricing model (free BYOK tier vs freemium or paid subscription vs custom enterprise pricing), deployment and hosting requirements (self‑hosted Docker/Helm, managed cloud, or on‑prem/air‑gapped enterprise deployments), depth of observability and cost governance (real‑time analytics, per‑model breakdowns, budget alerts, or full body logs), and security/compliance features (guardrails, PII detection, SOC 2/GDPR compliance, SSO support).
All Alternatives
“Provides a single unified API and key redistribution for many LLMs, directly comparable to an LLM gateway.”
“LLM router with model fallback, BYOK, self‑hosted deployment and observability, serving the same multi‑provider gateway purpose.”
“Offers a single OpenAI‑compatible endpoint that routes to multiple models, focusing on model routing and pricing.”
“Provides a single API for 40+ LLM providers with routing, security and cost analytics, directly matching UsageGuard's core function.”
“Open‑source gateway that unifies 140+ LLM providers behind an OpenAI‑compatible API, matching core routing and key management.”
About the Product
Is this your tool?
Claim this page to update details, reply to user reviews, and drive more traffic to your product.
Claim this Product →