Open-source LLM gateway you host yourself
INFRO vs LiteLLM
LiteLLM is one of the most widely used open-source LLM gateways: a Python SDK and a self-hosted, OpenAI-compatible proxy that reaches more than 100 providers, with virtual keys, budgets by key, user, team and end user, load balancing and fallbacks, spend tracking, caching, guardrail integrations and logging callbacks. The core is MIT-licensed; organizations, audit logs and some admin controls sit under a commercial enterprise license. If you want to run the gateway yourself, it is the default choice and it has earned that.
- You want to run the gateway in your own infrastructure on your own terms, with no vendor agreement. LiteLLM is built to be self-hosted by anyone; INFRO's self-hosted and hybrid deployments come only with an enterprise agreement.
- You want open-source code you can read, patch and fork, with no subscription for the core.
- You need a provider INFRO does not connect. Their catalog of more than 100 providers is far wider than our list of provider kinds.
- Prompt management, semantic caching, or a specific guardrail vendor (Presidio, Lakera, Bedrock Guardrails and others) is part of the requirement. INFRO has no prompt management, and its guardrails are pattern-based checks for PII, secrets and your own terms on chat completions, plus prompt-only classifier checks on your own decision-model connection, on the Business plan.
- You call models from Python and want the routing in-process, as a library, with no gateway hop at all.
- You need it working today. It is available now; INFRO is in private early access.
This section is not a courtesy. If one of these describes you, pick LiteLLM — a customer who adopts the wrong layer on our advice is worse for us than one we never had.
Where the two actually diverge.
- Software you run, or a service you use
- The LiteLLM proxy is yours to operate. Virtual keys and spend tracking need a Postgres database; past one instance, shared limits and router state need Redis, or each instance enforces its limits on its own. Upgrades, scaling, backups and on-call are part of adopting it — which suits a platform team that already runs this kind of service, and is real work for one that does not. INFRO's plans are hosted: there is nothing to deploy. The trade is the mirror image: your requests pass through our service rather than yours. An enterprise agreement can put INFRO in your own infrastructure instead; without one, that is exactly the case in which LiteLLM is the better choice.
- Where the organization controls live
- In LiteLLM, organizations and their admin roles, audit logs, and single sign-on past five users are enterprise-license features. In INFRO, projects, environments, five roles, model allowlists at organization, project and key level, budgets, and an audit log of who changed which policy are on every plan including the entry one. SAML/OIDC SSO and SCIM come with the Business plan; they are new and have not yet run in production against a customer's identity provider, so we set up the first connection with you.
- Estimated cost, and then the provider's own number
- Both products estimate each request's cost from a price table and both accept your own rates. LiteLLM documents a check of its spend against OpenAI's Costs API as coming in an upcoming release. On the Business plan INFRO checks the month's estimate against OpenAI's and Anthropic's own cost APIs and states the variance rather than assuming there is none.
- Not either-or
- A LiteLLM proxy you already run speaks the OpenAI API, so it can be connected to INFRO as an OpenAI-compatible endpoint: keep it for the providers only it reaches, and put INFRO's budgets, attribution and audit trail in front of the whole estate.
Side by side.
Our column carries dashes too. A comparison where one side is all checks is one nobody believes, and rightly.
| Capability | LiteLLM | INFRO |
|---|---|---|
| One API across many providers | yes100+ providers | yesthe providers you connect |
| Routing, retries and failover | yes | yes |
| Your own provider accounts | yesyou run it with your keys | yesconnected per environment |
| Self-hosting and open source | yesMIT core | partialself-hosted by agreement; gateway not open source |
| Nothing to deploy or operate | noPostgres; Redis past one instance | yeshosted service |
| Budgets by key, user, team and end user | yes | yes |
| Cost per request at your own rates | yescustom pricing | yesnegotiated rates on Team and above |
| Reconciliation against the provider's own bill | partialOpenAI only, announced for an upcoming release | partialOpenAI and Anthropic, Business plan; variance stated |
| Guardrails and PII masking | yesmany integrations | partialchat patterns plus prompt classifiers; Business plan |
| Prompt management | yes | nonot built |
| Org roles and audit log | partialenterprise license | yesevery plan |
| Image, video, and audio | yes | yes |
| Available today | yes | noprivate early access |
Our reading of each product's public documentation as of October 2026. We do not quote competitors' prices — theirs change and a wrong number about someone else's business is worse than none. Think a row is wrong? Tell us and we will fix it.
Work out what the difference is worth
Estimate what your current model mix costs at your providers' list rates and the plan it needs, or have us read your real usage and tell you where we would and would not help.