Pyyan / Compare / Kong AI Gateway vs OpenRouter vs LiteLLM vs Requesty
Kong AI Gateway vs OpenRouter vs LiteLLM vs Requesty
4 of 5Routers & Gateways · verified 13 Aug 2026
×OpenRouterOpenRoutercurrent
| Specification | Kong AI Gateway | OpenRouter | LiteLLM | Requesty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summary | Only sensible if you already run Kong. | Biggest catalogue, simplest start. | The self-hosted standard. | Lowest measured overhead. |
| Added latency | Varies | 40–55ms | Self-hosted | 8ms P50 |
| Hosting | Self | Managed | Self | Managed |
| Caching | — | — | Redis | — |
| Category | Routers & Gateways | Routers & Gateways | Routers & Gateways | Routers & Gateways |
| Official | Kong ↗ | OpenRouter ↗ | BerriAI ↗ | Requesty ↗ |
Highlighted rows are where these differ.
Kong AI Gateway
- Plugin ecosystem was built for REST, not LLMs
- No token-level cost attribution
Best for existing Kong users.
OpenRouter
- Consolidated billing across every provider
- 40–55ms overhead — 5× the alternatives
Best for prototyping.
LiteLLM
- Budget controls and Redis caching
- Zero marginal cost, you run it
Best for production.