Nebius AI Studio ranks #10 of 14 in our llm inference providers testing. sixty-plus current open models behind a price table that won't render, during a rename..
70/100
the catalogue looks right and the european base may matter for your data rules — but you cannot compare it on price without signing up, and it's mid-rebrand.
why people look for an alternative
−per-model prices unreadable without javascript
−no published rate limits or free-tier detail
−mid-rebrand with two product names live at once
−glm listed at 5.1 rather than 5.2
stay with Nebius AI Studio if 60+ open models, current generation is the thing you care about most — nothing below beats it on that.
#4 in llm inference providers · every deployment shape from serverless to your own gpu cluster — at the highest llama price on this list.
86/100
verdictthe widest ladder in the category — pay-per-token, provisioned throughput, dedicated instances, whole clusters — and you pay for the ladder on every token.
Together AI vs Nebius AI Studio
Nebius AI Studio
Together AI
price
unpublished
$1.04 / 1m in
free tier
no
no
billing
per-token
per-token to dedicated
llama 70b input
unpublished
$1.04/1m
deepseek v4
offered, price unreadable
$1.74/1m in
glm-5.2
glm-5.1 listed
$1.40/1m in
batch discount
unpublished
none; commit instead
switch forteams who expect to graduate from serverless to reserved throughput or dedicated hardware without changing vendor.
pros
+serverless through ptu, dedicated instances and full clusters
+same-day access to new frontier open releases
+steep cached-input rates across deepseek, glm and qwen
+volume discounts up to 32% on commitments
cons
−10x deepinfra's price on the anchor llama model
−no batch api discount — savings require capacity commitments
−no published rate limits; dynamic and account-level
#5 in llm inference providers · the only vendor here that prints tokens-per-second next to the price — on a catalogue of five models.
85/100
verdictuniquely transparent about throughput and priced fairly for it — but a five-model catalogue with no deepseek and no glm rules it out for a lot of work.
Groq vs Nebius AI Studio
Nebius AI Studio
Groq
price
unpublished
$0.59 / 1m in
free tier
no
yes
billing
per-token
per-token
llama 70b input
unpublished
$0.59/1m
deepseek v4
offered, price unreadable
not served
glm-5.2
glm-5.1 listed
not served
batch discount
unpublished
50%
switch forlatency-sensitive products that can live on llama or gpt-oss and want the speed number in writing.
pros
+per-model tokens-per-second published on the pricing page
+50% off both batch and cached input
+openai sdk drop-in compatibility
+genuinely low latency at a mid-field price
cons
−only five models on the public pricing page
−no deepseek and no glm models at all
−free tier capped at 1,000 requests a day on the 70b
#6 in llm inference providers · one endpoint in front of the whole market, at genuinely no markup — which makes the routing itself the product.
84/100
verdictcharges nothing to sit in the middle, which is rare enough to be worth using — you just can't look up 'the openrouter price' for anything, because there isn't one.
OpenRouter vs Nebius AI Studio
Nebius AI Studio
OpenRouter
price
unpublished
the routed provider's price
free tier
no
yes
billing
per-token
pass-through
llama 70b input
unpublished
routed provider's rate
deepseek v4
offered, price unreadable
via routed provider
glm-5.2
glm-5.1 listed
via routed provider
batch discount
unpublished
provider's own
switch foranyone still choosing, still comparing, or wanting to switch providers without shipping a code change.
pros
+no markup on standard inference, per its own faq
+one openai-compatible endpoint across most of this list
+switching provider or model needs no code change
+free tier for evaluation, 1,000 requests/day after $10 credit
cons
−no price list of its own — cost depends entirely on routing
−byok costs 5% beyond 1m requests a month
−free models explicitly not recommended for production
#8 in llm inference providers · the fastest inference hardware built, attached to a pricing page that wouldn't tell us what anything costs.
76/100
verdictthe technology is genuinely in a class of its own and the subscription tiers are good value — but we could not verify a single per-token rate, and that costs it eight places.
Cerebras vs Nebius AI Studio
Nebius AI Studio
Cerebras
price
unpublished
unpublished
free tier
no
yes
billing
per-token
per-token + subscriptions
llama 70b input
unpublished
unpublished
deepseek v4
offered, price unreadable
unpublished
glm-5.2
glm-5.1 listed
unpublished
batch discount
unpublished
unpublished
switch fordevelopers who want extreme throughput and can work within a daily-token subscription rather than a per-token budget.
pros
+fastest inference hardware in the category by a wide margin
+generous daily token allowances on flat subscriptions
+$5 free credits and a low $10 self-serve minimum
cons
−per-model token prices unreadable across three attempts
−speed marketed as '20x' with no model or figure attached
−no published numeric rate limits
−a preview model is already scheduled for deprecation
every tool on this page went through the same test as Nebius AI Studio — same tasks, same order, scored the same way. the comparison tables are the figures from that testing, not vendor spec sheets.