LLM router and gateway
INFRO vs Requesty
Requesty is an OpenAI-compatible routing gateway: one endpoint across hundreds of models with fallback, load-balancing and latency-based routing policies, automatic caching, budgets per team, user and key, guardrails for PII and secrets, approved-model lists, and per-request cost in the response. You can use Requesty's keys or your own, per model. It overlaps INFRO more closely than most of this list — the disagreement is about scope, not about whether routing is worth doing.
- Your workload is text-first and likely to stay that way. The extra surface INFRO carries for media is cost you will not use.
- You need processing kept in the EU. Requesty documents an EU endpoint and EU-hosted models; regional processing is on INFRO's roadmap and not available today.
- You want the option of using the platform's provider keys for some models and your own for others. INFRO only ever runs on accounts you connect.
- You want it now. Requesty is available; INFRO is in early access.
- Their specific caching or routing-policy behaviour matches how you want to work — read both sets of docs, because this is a real evaluation rather than a marketing question.
This section is not a courtesy. If one of these describes you, pick Requesty — a customer who adopts the wrong layer on our advice is worse for us than one we never had.
Where the two actually diverge.
- Four modalities or one
- The routing problem for a 6-second video render — a job that takes minutes, returns by webhook, and produces a file that has to outlive the provider's retention window — is a different problem from routing a chat completion. Carrying both is the design decision INFRO is making.
- Where the money is, and who holds it
- For a media-heavy product the spend concentrates in image, video and audio, and those are the workloads least visible on a text-first gateway's dashboards. INFRO carries all four modalities and attributes their cost the same way — against your own providers' rates, on your own accounts. INFRO takes 0% of it either way, so its incentive is to make that spend legible rather than to grow it.
- Governance as a product, not a setting
- Member roles, ceilings at four levels, model allowlists, and an administrative audit trail give platform teams a common set of controls, with SAML/OIDC single sign-on and SCIM directory provisioning from the Business plan.
Side by side.
Our column carries dashes too. A comparison where one side is all checks is one nobody believes, and rightly.
| Capability | Requesty | INFRO |
|---|---|---|
| Text model access | yes | yes |
| Image, video, and audio | partialimage and audio endpoints; no video documented | yes |
| Routing and fallback | yes | yes |
| Your own provider accounts | partialper model, inside a routing policy | yesevery request |
| Analytics and cost tracking | yes | yes |
| Spend controls | yesteam, user and key | yesorg, project, member, key |
| Guardrails | yesPII and secrets; report or mask | partialchat patterns plus prompt classifiers; Business plan |
| Reconciliation against the provider's own bill | no | partialOpenAI and Anthropic, Business plan; variance stated |
| EU data residency | yesEU endpoint and EU-hosted models | noon the roadmap |
| Async jobs and signed webhooks | partial | 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.