Website profiles · Technology insights · Alternatives

korouter.ai

OpenAI-compatible LLM gateway: one API and one key for a growing catalog of leading models. Pay as you go below official prices, with automatic routing and failover.

No paid content found
Visit website
Profile views 1 Outbound visits 0 Normal
KoRouter Full homepage screenshot

At a glance

Category
Development
Language
English
Paid-content signal
No paid content foundObserved
Registered
2026
Hosting
CloudflareInferred
HTTPS certificate trusted
PassedObserved
Last updated

Website review

This review may include AI-generated content and is not individually verified. Domain, certificate and other facts come from the observed data on this page.

What is KoRouter?

KoRouter is an LLM gateway: a single OpenAI-compatible API and one key that route requests to a catalogue of leading models from multiple providers. Instead of signing up with each provider and managing separate keys, you change one base_url in your client and KoRouter handles provider switching, automatic failover and pay-as-you-go billing. It also exposes an Anthropic-compatible endpoint, so tools built for either protocol can point at the same service.

What you actually get

  • One key, many models. Bare model IDs (for example claude-fable-5) in a live catalogue spanning Anthropic, OpenAI, DeepSeek, GLM, Kimi and others.
  • Two protocols. OpenAI-style clients use OPENAI_BASE_URL plus OPENAI_API_KEY; Claude Code-style clients use ANTHROPIC_BASE_URL plus ANTHROPIC_AUTH_TOKEN.
  • Failover and routing. If a provider is unavailable, KoRouter switches automatically rather than failing the request.
  • Pay-as-you-go. No monthly fee and no stated minimum spend; one credit balance covers all models, with token, image and request prices drawn from a live billing catalogue.

Where it fits

The clearest audience is developers running AI coding assistants — the page names Claude Code, Codex, Cline, OpenCode, Aider and similar clients. If you already have one of those configured, the migration is genuinely a one-line change: swap the base URL, paste a key from the console, and the existing tool keeps working while gaining access to every model in the catalogue. A second audience is teams that want a single billing line and one integration point instead of N provider accounts.

The trade-off is the usual one for a gateway: you add a middle layer between your application and the model provider. That buys convenience, failover and (per the site) lower prices, but it also means your traffic and billing pass through a third party, and model availability depends on KoRouter's upstream relationships rather than your own contracts. For latency-sensitive or compliance-bound workloads, weigh that carefully.

On price

KoRouter advertises savings of up to 63% against official API prices, with per-model figures such as claude-opus-5-5 at 35% off and gpt-6.1-sol at 63% off, shown as input/output rates per million tokens. Treat these as the vendor's own claims and verify current numbers on the live pricing page before committing, since gateway pricing and model catalogues change frequently.

Next step

Pick one tool you already use, note its current base URL and key, then point it at KoRouter with a small credit balance and run a few real prompts. Compare output quality, latency and cost against your existing setup for a week before migrating anything production-critical. For a broader view of the model providers themselves, see OpenAI and Anthropic.

How do I switch my existing OpenAI or Anthropic client to KoRouter?

Switching is a two-line change: point your client's base URL at KoRouter and replace the API key. KoRouter exposes both OpenAI- and Anthropic-compatible endpoints, so the same key works across either protocol.

For OpenAI-compatible clients

This covers Codex, Cline, Aider, OpenCode and anything else that reads OPENAI_BASE_URL:

export OPENAI_BASE_URL="https://korouter.ai"
export OPENAI_API_KEY="sk-********"

For Anthropic-compatible clients

Claude Code and other Anthropic-protocol tools use different variable names:

export ANTHROPIC_BASE_URL="https://korouter.ai"
export ANTHROPIC_AUTH_TOKEN="sk-********"

Model names are passed as bare IDs (for example claude-fable-5), so any model-specific setting in your config stays as-is. If your client stores the endpoint in a config file rather than an environment variable, edit that field instead — the value is the same.

What to check before you commit

  • Protocol match. Confirm whether your tool speaks the OpenAI or Anthropic schema. Sending an Anthropic-shaped request to an OpenAI endpoint is the most common cause of a confusing 400 error after a switch.
  • Key location. Tools often read the key from a shell profile, a project .env, or a GUI settings pane. If the old key is still set somewhere with higher precedence, the switch appears not to work.
  • Model IDs. A client that hardcodes gpt-4o or similar won't automatically use the cheaper catalog entries; you choose the model ID explicitly.

A practical test

Run one small request through the new endpoint before changing anything else — a single short completion from the CLI or a one-line script. If it returns, your routing is correct and you can migrate the rest of your configuration with confidence. If it fails, revert the base URL and check the key and protocol first.

When this is worth doing

The trade-off is straightforward: you accept a third-party gateway in the request path in exchange for one key across providers, automatic failover, and per-token rates below official list. That suits individual developers and small teams running several coding assistants who don't want to manage separate provider accounts and billing. Teams with strict data-residency or procurement requirements may prefer direct provider contracts, where the endpoint and terms are under their own control.

How much cheaper is KoRouter compared to official API prices?

KoRouter advertises savings of up to 63% versus official API prices, with the discount varying by model rather than applying uniformly across the catalog. The page's own examples put two models side by side:

Model KoRouter input / output Official input / output Stated discount
Anthropic claude-opus-5-5 $2.60 / $13.00 per 1M tokens $4.00 / $20.00 per 1M tokens 35% off
OpenAI gpt-6.1-sol $0.74 / $3.70 per 1M tokens $2.00 / $10.00 per 1M tokens 63% off

The headline "up to 63% off" therefore describes the best case, not a flat rate. A featured list on the page also shows claude-fable-5.1 at 35% off, deepseek-v4.1-flash at 56% off, and gpt-6.1-sol at 63% off — so a mixed workload will land somewhere between roughly a third and two-thirds below official list prices.

What the discount does and doesn't cover

The percentages are quoted on token prices (input, output, and cache read in the claude-opus-5-5 example). KoRouter states there is no monthly fee and no minimum spend, with one prepaid credit balance covering every model, and that token, image, and request prices come from a live billing catalog. If your workload includes image generation or per-request charges, check those line items individually rather than assuming the token discount carries over.

A realistic cost check

Suppose you spend $500 a month on official APIs, weighted toward a heavily discounted model. At 63% off you'd pay about $185; at 35% off, about $325. The gap between those two outcomes is large enough that the useful question isn't "how much cheaper is KoRouter" but "how much cheaper is my model mix."

Next step: list the models you actually call and their monthly token volumes, then pull the current per-model input/output rates from the KoRouter pricing page and compare them against each provider's official pricing page for the same models. That gives you a blended discount figure for your workload instead of the marketing ceiling. If your traffic is concentrated in one or two models, the answer is essentially the discount on those models; if it's spread across many, expect a figure closer to the middle of the range.

How does KoRouter's automatic routing and failover work?

KoRouter presents itself as an OpenAI- and Anthropic-compatible gateway: you point your existing tool at its base URL, and it handles provider selection behind that single endpoint. Its page describes automatic routing and automatic failover as built-in behaviours of that layer, so from the client side you keep one key and one base URL while KoRouter decides which upstream provider serves each request and moves to another when one is unavailable.

What this means in practice

  • Routing: your request is matched to a model in the live catalog and dispatched to a provider that can serve it. You don't manage per-provider keys or endpoints yourself.
  • Failover: if a provider fails or is unreachable, the gateway is designed to retry against another provider rather than returning the error to your app.
  • Client compatibility: because it exposes both OpenAI- and Anthropic-style endpoints, tools such as Claude Code, Codex, Cline, Aider and OpenCode can be redirected by changing a base_url and key.

Trade-offs worth weighing

Concern What to check
Behaviour during failover Whether a retry can change the model actually serving the request, and how that affects output consistency
Latency Extra network hop through the gateway versus calling a provider directly
Cost visibility Whether routing decisions are logged per request so you can attribute spend
Model identity Whether "bare ids" map predictably to a specific upstream provider version
Data handling Which providers see your prompts once routing is automated

A concrete scenario

A team runs an AI coding assistant in CI. Instead of storing several provider keys and writing retry logic, they set one environment variable pair for the gateway. When a provider has an outage mid-run, the gateway is meant to absorb it and the job completes. The cost is an added hop and less direct control over which provider answers — acceptable for coding assistance, less so where you must pin a specific model version for reproducibility.

Next step

Test failover deliberately rather than assuming it: send a batch of requests and inspect the responses and any per-request metadata for which provider served them. If the gateway's logs don't show provider attribution, treat routing as opaque and evaluate whether that fits your auditing needs. For comparison, OpenAI's own platform documents its own retry and rate-limit behaviour at OpenAI, and Anthropic's API guidance is at Anthropic.

Which models can I access through KoRouter's single API?

KoRouter's catalog is organized around a single OpenAI-compatible endpoint, with an Anthropic-compatible endpoint for tools that expect it. The models named on its page span several families:

  • Anthropic-style models: claude-opus-5-5, claude-fable-5.1, claude-fable-5, claude-sonnet-5, claude-sonnet-5-5, claude-haiku-4-5, claude-opus-4-6, claude-opus-4-7, claude-opus-4-8, claude-opus-5
  • OpenAI-style models: gpt-6.1-sol, gpt-6-sol, gpt-5.6-sol, gpt-5.6-terra, gpt-6-astra
  • Other providers: deepseek-v4.1-flash, glm-5.3, glm-5.3-flash, kimi-k3

Model IDs are used as bare strings (for example, claude-fable-5), so switching models is usually a matter of changing that string rather than rewriting integration code.

What this means in practice

If you maintain several AI coding tools — say Claude Code for one workflow and Cline or Aider for another — the practical benefit is that each tool points at the same base URL and key while you pick models per task. A cheap, fast model such as deepseek-v4.1-flash or glm-5.3-flash can handle routine edits, while a stronger model like claude-opus-5-5 or gpt-6.1-sol takes harder reasoning work. Because KoRouter also advertises automatic routing and failover, a request can fall back to another provider if one is unavailable, which matters more when you depend on a single key across many tools.

Two caveats worth checking before you commit:

  1. Catalog freshness. The listed model names include versions that may not match what providers currently serve. Treat the live catalog as the source of truth and confirm the exact IDs in your console before wiring them into scripts.
  2. Compatibility limits. OpenAI- and Anthropic-compatible endpoints cover the common chat and completion patterns, but provider-specific features (certain tool-calling formats, caching controls, or beta parameters) may behave differently through a gateway. Test the specific features your app relies on.

Next step

Start with one low-risk tool: set its base URL and key to KoRouter, run a small task with a mid-tier model, then compare output quality and latency against your current direct setup. If that holds up, expand to your other clients and only then consider moving production traffic.

Do I need a monthly subscription or minimum spend to use KoRouter?

No. KoRouter is described as pay-as-you-go: no monthly fee and no minimum spend, with a single credit balance that covers every model in the catalog. You top up, and usage is drawn down per token, image, or request based on the live billing catalog.

What that means in practice

  • You pay for what you actually use. A light month — a few code reviews, occasional refactors — costs little. A heavy month costs more, but you aren't locked into a tier.
  • One balance, many models. You don't need separate accounts or prepaid credits per provider; the same balance covers whichever model you route to.
  • No idle cost. If you stop using it, you stop paying. That is the main trade-off versus a flat subscription: predictable bills are harder to forecast, and you need to keep an eye on spend if you run long agent loops.

A concrete scenario

Say you wire KoRouter into a coding client by changing one base_url and an API key, as the setup notes describe for OpenAI- and Anthropic-compatible tools. You use it for a week of intermittent work, then leave it untouched for a month. Under a subscription model that idle month still bills you; here it doesn't. Conversely, if you run a large automated pipeline every day, a subscription with a fixed cap could be cheaper — so estimate your monthly token volume before deciding.

Next step

Check the pricing page for current per-model rates and confirm the minimum top-up amount in your console, since that is the practical floor on your first payment rather than a recurring commitment. If you want to compare the underlying model costs, the official rate cards from OpenAI and Anthropic give you the baseline the discounts are measured against.

Related questions

More questions →
What Is AI Programming and How Are Developers Actually Using It?

AI programming is the practice of using machine-learning models to generate, complete, review, or test code inside a developer's existing workflow. It covers everything from a single-line autocomplete suggestion in an IDE to a chat assistant that explains an unfamiliar function to an autonomous agent that opens a pull request on its own. The practical dividing line is not the model but the level of human oversight: the more a tool acts without review, the narrower the tasks it should be trusted with.

The four things AI actually does in a codebase

Most day-to-day use falls into a few recognizable activities:

  • Completion — predicts the next line or block as you type, based on the file and surrounding context.
  • Generation — produces a function, class, config file, or migration script from a natural-language description.
  • Explanation and review — summarizes what a piece of code does, flags suspicious patterns, or suggests a refactor.
  • Testing and debugging — writes unit tests for existing code, proposes fixes for a failing test, or traces a stack trace back to a likely cause.

These are not separate products so much as separate modes. The same assistant that autocompletes a loop can also be asked to write the test for it.

Tool categories and where each fits

Category Typical form Best for Main trade-off
IDE copilot Inline suggestions in the editor Boilerplate, repetitive patterns, unfamiliar syntax Suggestions arrive without context about your architecture
Chat-based assistant Side panel or separate window Explaining code, drafting a design, debugging a stack trace You must paste or describe context manually
Autonomous agent Runs commands, edits files, opens PRs Multi-file changes, dependency upgrades, test scaffolding Highest blast radius; needs the tightest review

The categories overlap, and many tools now span more than one. The useful question is not which category is best but how much of the change you are willing to accept without reading it line by line.

What a realistic workflow looks like

A common pattern, for example when adding a new API endpoint:

  1. Describe the endpoint in a comment or chat prompt — method, path, expected input and output.
  2. Let the assistant draft the handler and the data model.
  3. Read the draft and correct the parts that assume an API or library version you don't use.
  4. Ask the assistant to generate tests for the happy path and at least one failure case.
  5. Run the tests, then review the diff as you would any teammate's pull request.

The assistant compresses the first draft; it does not remove steps 3 and 5. Teams that skip the review step are the ones that report the worst outcomes.

Where it breaks down

The limitations are consistent enough to plan around:

  • Hallucinated APIs. Models invent function names, parameters, and library methods that look plausible and compile-fail or, worse, silently do the wrong thing.
  • Insecure suggestions. Generated code may interpolate user input into queries, disable certificate checks, or hardcode credentials because the training data contained those patterns.
  • Licensing and provenance. Suggestions may closely resemble licensed source; teams need a policy on what is acceptable to commit.
  • Data privacy. Pasting proprietary code into a hosted assistant may send it to a third party. Check whether your tool runs locally, offers an enterprise tier with data controls, or is approved for your codebase.
  • Stale knowledge. Models have a training cutoff and will confidently describe an older version of a framework.

None of these make the tools unusable. They make verification mandatory.

How to verify AI-generated code

Treat every suggestion as an untrusted contribution:

  • Compile and run it. A suggestion that doesn't build is a cheap failure; catch it before review.
  • Check every external call. Confirm the function exists, the signature matches, and the version is the one you depend on.
  • Read for security. Look specifically at input handling, authentication, secrets, and anything touching the network or filesystem.
  • Test the edges. Ask for failure cases, not just the happy path, and add the ones the model missed.
  • Keep the diff small. A 20-line suggestion is reviewable; a 400-line agent-generated refactor is not, at least not in one pass.

How teams adopt it gradually

The lowest-risk entry point is tasks where a mistake is cheap and visible: writing tests for existing code, generating documentation comments, scaffolding a config file, or translating a snippet between languages. From there, teams typically move to in-editor completion for routine code, then to chat-based assistance for debugging and design questions. Autonomous agents that modify multiple files tend to come last, and usually behind a branch-and-review gate rather than direct commits.

The pattern that holds up: start where you would notice an error immediately, expand only after the review habit is established, and keep a human accountable for anything that reaches production.

What Is OpenAPI-Generated API Documentation and How Does It Work?

OpenAPI-generated API documentation is reference documentation that is produced automatically from an OpenAPI description file rather than written by hand. You write (or generate) a machine-readable specification of your API — endpoints, parameters, request bodies, responses, schemas, and auth — and a documentation tool reads that file and renders a browsable, often interactive reference site. The spec becomes the single source of truth; the docs become a build artifact.

This differs from manually written docs in one fundamental way: with hand-written docs, the prose is the source of truth and the API is described separately. With spec-driven docs, the API description is the source, and every page, table, and code sample is derived from it.

How the workflow actually runs

A typical spec-driven documentation pipeline has five stages:

  1. Author or generate the spec. You either write an OpenAPI document by hand (YAML or JSON), or generate it from code annotations, framework metadata, or a design-first editor. Design-first means the spec is written before implementation; code-first means it is extracted from existing code.
  2. Validate and lint. The spec is checked against the OpenAPI schema and against style rules — consistent naming, required descriptions, no undocumented 4xx responses, no orphaned schemas.
  3. Bundle and transform. Multi-file specs are combined, $ref pointers are resolved, and the document is optionally split into per-tag or per-version outputs.
  4. Render. A documentation tool converts the spec into HTML: an endpoint list, a sidebar of operations, parameter tables, response schemas, and a "try it" console.
  5. Publish and version. The rendered site is deployed, and each API version gets its own snapshot so consumers can read docs matching the version they call.

Steps 2 through 5 are usually automated in CI. If the spec fails validation, the docs build fails — which is the point.

Spec-driven vs. hand-written documentation

Dimension OpenAPI-generated Hand-written
Source of truth The spec file The prose
Consistency with the API High, if the spec is accurate Drifts as the API changes
Effort per endpoint Low after setup Repeated for every endpoint
Narrative and tutorials Weak; needs separate pages Strong
Code samples Generated per language from schemas Written and maintained manually
Customization Bounded by the tool's templates Unlimited
Failure mode Accurate spec, poor docs, or stale spec Beautiful docs that describe an API that no longer exists

The practical conclusion most teams reach: generate the reference, write the guides. Reference material is repetitive and mechanical, which is exactly what generation is good at. Conceptual explanations, migration notes, and tutorials carry judgment that a spec cannot express.

What you get out of the box

Generated reference pages commonly include:

  • An operation list grouped by tag or path, with HTTP method and path.
  • Parameter tables showing name, location (path, query, header, cookie), type, required flag, and description.
  • Request and response schemas rendered as expandable trees, including nested objects and arrays.
  • Authentication details pulled from the securitySchemes section.
  • Interactive request consoles that let a reader send a real call from the browser.
  • Generated code samples in several languages, derived from the same schemas.
  • Multiple output formats, such as a static site, a single HTML file, or a mock server.

Because all of these come from one document, changing a field name in the spec updates the parameter table, the schema tree, and every code sample at once.

Where spec-driven documentation breaks down

Generation is not free. The trade-offs are real:

Spec quality becomes documentation quality. A field with no description produces a table row with an empty cell. A vague summary produces a vague heading. Tools can enforce presence of descriptions via linting, but they cannot enforce that the description is useful.

Customization has limits. If you need a page that does not map to an OpenAPI concept — a conceptual overview, a pricing explanation, a comparison of two endpoints — you write it outside the generator and link to it.

Not everything is expressible. Webhooks, streaming responses, long-polling behavior, and complex multi-step flows are awkward or impossible to describe fully in OpenAPI. Those need prose.

The spec can go stale. If the spec is maintained separately from the implementation, it drifts just like hand-written docs. The mitigation is to generate the spec from code, or to test the implementation against the spec in CI.

Interactive consoles need care. A "try it" button that hits a production API with real credentials is a security and rate-limit problem. Point it at a sandbox, or disable it.

Deciding whether to adopt it

Adopt spec-driven reference documentation if most of these are true:

  • Your API has more than a handful of endpoints, or changes frequently.
  • You ship client SDKs or code samples in more than one language.
  • Multiple teams consume the API and need a consistent, always-current reference.
  • You already have, or are willing to maintain, an OpenAPI description.

Stay with hand-written docs, or a hybrid, if:

  • Your API is small and stable, and the reference fits on one page.
  • Your documentation is mostly conceptual and contains little endpoint-level detail.
  • You cannot commit to keeping the spec in sync with the implementation.

A reasonable middle path: generate the reference from the spec, and hand-write the getting-started guide, authentication walkthrough, and error-handling page. Link the two directions so readers can move from concept to endpoint and back.

A minimal starting checklist

  1. Produce one valid OpenAPI document for a single API version.
  2. Add a linter with rules for descriptions, operation IDs, and error responses.
  3. Wire the docs build into CI so a failing spec fails the build.
  4. Render the reference and review it as a reader, not as the author.
  5. Write the two or three conceptual pages the generator cannot produce.
  6. Version the published docs alongside the API version.

The core idea is simple: describe the API once, in a format both machines and humans can read, and let the reference documentation fall out of that description. Everything else — tooling, hosting, interactivity — is a detail on top of that decision.

Website Overview

The available information shows a mix of normal operation and configuration gaps. Depending on how the website is used, these gaps may affect secure access or the consistency of its public presentation.

Domain and Registration

The domain was registered less than a year ago and has limited historical evidence to assess. Transfer-protection status is present, helping reduce the risk of unauthorized domain transfers. Registration contact information is publicly available through RDAP. The domain uses the common .ai extension, which is not an independent safety signal.

DNS and Email

Nameservers are provided by Cloudflare, indicating managed DNS hosting. MX records point to the Cloudflare Email Routing email service. No CNAME was found; the observed records resolve directly to addresses. SPF and DMARC are configured. DKIM status is unknown. TXT records include verification markers for Google. Such markers may also remain after a service stops being used.

TLS and Certificates

The public key uses EC with 256 bits. The server supplied a complete certificate chain. No organization name is present in the certificate; the available fields are consistent with domain validation. The certificate was issued within the Google Trust Services cloud or CDN ecosystem. The certificate's total validity is about 90 days, consistent with a short renewal cycle.

HTTP and Browser Security

No X-Powered-By header was found, reducing one common source of backend fingerprinting information. All six checked browser-security headers are present. Their effectiveness still depends on the policy values and application behavior. The cf-ray response header indicates a CDN or caching proxy in the delivery path. No obvious internal addresses or debug information were found in the headers. The Server header identifies cloudflare without an exact version.

Technology Stack Analysis

The public page identifies Google Analytics, Cloudflare without precise versions, leaving fewer clues for version-specific scanning.

Search and Social Sharing

The meta description has 165 characters and may be shortened in search results. Twitter Card metadata is configured. JSON-LD includes Organization data, helping describe the organization as an entity. The title has 35 characters, within a common display range. The observed directives allow indexing and link following.

Hosting and Email

DNSCloudflare
HostingCloudflare
EmailCloudflare Email Routing
Approximate IP geolocation (inferred; a CDN or proxy may differ from the origin server) Location unknown Inferred 104.21.40.189

Registration details

RDAP / WHOIS

RegistrarSpaceship, Inc.
Registered2026-07-27
Expires2028-07-27
Domain statusclient transfer prohibited
Nameserversheather.ns.cloudflare.com、yisroel.ns.cloudflare.com
DNSSECunsigned

DNS records

DNS

TypeNameValueTTLPriority
Akorouter.ai104.21.40.189300—
Akorouter.ai172.67.156.78300—
AAAAkorouter.ai2606:4700:3030::6815:28bd300—
AAAAkorouter.ai2606:4700:3030::ac43:9c4e300—
MXkorouter.airoute2.mx.cloudflare.net30043
MXkorouter.airoute1.mx.cloudflare.net30044
MXkorouter.airoute3.mx.cloudflare.net30056
NSkorouter.aiheather.ns.cloudflare.com86400—
NSkorouter.aiyisroel.ns.cloudflare.com86400—
TXTkorouter.aigoogle-site-verification=Dsk38PWxoG4l09vf4cV05ljTMdUowy5Ymv4vZdh6hmM300—
TXTkorouter.aiv=spf1 include:_spf.mx.cloudflare.net ~all300—
DMARC_dmarc.korouter.aiv=DMARC1; p=reject;300—

TLS and certificates

TLS / SSL

AssessmentNormal configuration
Supported protocolsTLSv1.2、TLSv1.3
Negotiated protocolTLSv1.3
Certificate subjectkorouter.ai
IssuerGoogle Trust Services
Valid until2026-12-23T11:04 · Remaining when checked: 73 days
Verification detailsCertificate trust: Passed · Hostname match: Passed

HTTP response headers

HTTP

HeaderValue
content-typetext/html; charset=utf-8
cache-controlpublic, max-age=0, s-maxage=60, stale-while-revalidate=300
servercloudflare
strict-transport-securitymax-age=31536000; includeSubDomains
content-security-policybase-uri 'self'; frame-ancestors 'none'; object-src 'none'
x-frame-optionsDENY
x-content-type-optionsnosniff
referrer-policystrict-origin-when-cross-origin
permissions-policycamera=(), geolocation=(), microphone=()

Identified technologies

Google AnalyticsCloudflare

Pages, Search and Sharing

Meta descriptionOpenAI-compatible LLM gateway: one API and one key for a growing catalog of leading models. Pay as you go below official prices, with automatic routing and failover.
Canonical URLhttps://korouter.ai/
LanguageEnglish (default)
Twitter Cardsummary_large_image
gptbot 0 allowed · 8 disallowed
  • Disallow/api/
  • Disallow/home
  • Disallow/keys
  • Disallow/credits
  • Disallow/usage
  • Disallow/invite
  • Disallow/admin
  • Disallow/payment/
oai-searchbot 0 allowed · 8 disallowed
  • Disallow/api/
  • Disallow/home
  • Disallow/keys
  • Disallow/credits
  • Disallow/usage
  • Disallow/invite
  • Disallow/admin
  • Disallow/payment/
chatgpt-user 0 allowed · 8 disallowed
  • Disallow/api/
  • Disallow/home
  • Disallow/keys
  • Disallow/credits
  • Disallow/usage
  • Disallow/invite
  • Disallow/admin
  • Disallow/payment/
claudebot 0 allowed · 8 disallowed
  • Disallow/api/
  • Disallow/home
  • Disallow/keys
  • Disallow/credits
  • Disallow/usage
  • Disallow/invite
  • Disallow/admin
  • Disallow/payment/
claude-user 0 allowed · 8 disallowed
  • Disallow/api/
  • Disallow/home
  • Disallow/keys
  • Disallow/credits
  • Disallow/usage
  • Disallow/invite
  • Disallow/admin
  • Disallow/payment/
perplexitybot 0 allowed · 8 disallowed
  • Disallow/api/
  • Disallow/home
  • Disallow/keys
  • Disallow/credits
  • Disallow/usage
  • Disallow/invite
  • Disallow/admin
  • Disallow/payment/
perplexity-user 0 allowed · 8 disallowed
  • Disallow/api/
  • Disallow/home
  • Disallow/keys
  • Disallow/credits
  • Disallow/usage
  • Disallow/invite
  • Disallow/admin
  • Disallow/payment/
google-extended 0 allowed · 8 disallowed
  • Disallow/api/
  • Disallow/home
  • Disallow/keys
  • Disallow/credits
  • Disallow/usage
  • Disallow/invite
  • Disallow/admin
  • Disallow/payment/
bingbot 0 allowed · 8 disallowed
  • Disallow/api/
  • Disallow/home
  • Disallow/keys
  • Disallow/credits
  • Disallow/usage
  • Disallow/invite
  • Disallow/admin
  • Disallow/payment/
All bots 0 allowed · 8 disallowed
  • Disallow/api/
  • Disallow/home
  • Disallow/keys
  • Disallow/credits
  • Disallow/usage
  • Disallow/invite
  • Disallow/admin
  • Disallow/payment/

User reviews (0)

  • No reviews yet.