Compare tools
Pick 2–5 published tools. Values come from our evidence-checked profiles — an em-dash means unknown, never “no”. Ranking rows reflect the current published methodology for the comparison context.
Not Diamond vs Portkey
Context: LLM Gateways & Model Routing Platforms · 21 rows
| Attribute | Not DiamondNot Diamond | PortkeyPortkey |
|---|---|---|
| Identity · Taxonomy | ||
| Documentation | https://code.notdiamond.ai/docs | https://portkey.ai/docs |
| Tags | model-routing, llm, coding-agents, ai | llm-gateway, llm-observability, guardrails, prompt-management |
| Platform · Deployment | ||
| Delivery model | SaaS | SaaS, self-hosted |
| Pricing · Licensing | ||
| Free plan | — | true |
| License model | — | open-source |
| Pricing model | custom | free, subscription, custom |
| Source repository | — | https://github.com/Portkey-AI/gateway |
| SPDX license IDs | — | MIT |
| Starting price | — | 49 |
| Features · Product · Fit | ||
| Core capabilities | Per-request intelligent model selection, Routing across provider, model, domain, and reasoning complexity, Cost-savings targeting for agent workloads, Gateway-agnostic integration via API | Unified API to 1,600+ LLMs, Routing, fallbacks, and load balancing, Observability with logs, traces, and metrics, Guardrails including PII redaction, Prompt management and caching, MCP gateway for tool access |
| Api · Integrations · Ecosystem | ||
| API available | true | true |
| Security · Privacy · Compliance | ||
| Regulatory compliance | — | GDPR, HIPAA |
| Security certifications | SOC 2, ISO 27001 | SOC 2 Type II, HIPAA |
| Support · Docs · Services | ||
| Support channels | — | community, production support, priority support |
| Audience · Use · Case | ||
| Best for | Engineering teams running coding agents that want per-request model selection to reduce spend while keeping their existing gateway or harness. | Teams building GenAI applications that want observability, guardrails, and gateway routing available as SaaS or self-hosted. |
| Company-size fit | mid-market, enterprise | SMB, mid-market, enterprise |
| Primary use cases | Model routing for coding agents, LLM cost reduction, Avoiding vendor lock-in | Production monitoring for GenAI applications, LLM cost and latency management, AI governance with RBAC and audit logs |
| Skill level | advanced | intermediate |
| Lifecycle · Versioning | ||
| Maintenance status | active | active |
| Vendor · Maintainer | ||
| Headquarters country | — | United States |
| Vendor type | commercial | commercial |
“—” means unknown (we never treat missing evidence as a negative). Cells reflect each value's current evidence state; superseded or stale values are excluded. Ranking rows are editorial assessments under the cited methodology version — see the LLM Gateways & Model Routing Platforms category for definitions.