| 0 |
| Ecosystem | 1 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Paid |
| Capabilities | 8 decomposed | 14 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Routes requests across multiple LLM models organized into performance tiers (e.g., fast/cheap vs. slow/capable), selecting the appropriate tier based on request complexity or user-defined routing rules. Implements a decision tree that evaluates incoming prompts against tier criteria and selects the lowest-cost model capable of handling the request, reducing API spend while maintaining quality thresholds.
Unique: Implements explicit tier-based routing with fallback chains rather than simple load balancing, allowing developers to define semantic tiers (e.g., 'reasoning', 'classification', 'generation') and map them to specific models with cost/latency tradeoffs
vs alternatives: More granular than round-robin load balancing because it considers request characteristics and model capabilities, not just availability
Automatically cascades requests to alternative models when the primary model fails, times out, or returns an error. Maintains a fallback chain (e.g., GPT-4 → Claude → Llama) and transparently retries with the next model in sequence without requiring application-level retry logic, with configurable backoff and circuit-breaker patterns.
Unique: Encapsulates fallback logic as a first-class routing primitive rather than requiring application code to implement try-catch chains, with built-in circuit breaker to prevent cascading failures
vs alternatives: Simpler than manual retry logic in application code and more reliable than simple timeout-based retries because it understands provider-specific error semantics
Routes requests to models based on attached metadata (e.g., user tier, request priority, domain) rather than just request content. Evaluates metadata against routing rules at request time to select the optimal model, enabling use cases like 'premium users get GPT-4, free users get GPT-3.5' or 'code generation requests use specialized models'. Metadata can be attached by middleware or application logic before routing.
Unique: Decouples routing decisions from request content by using explicit metadata, allowing non-technical operators to define routing policies without code changes
vs alternatives: More flexible than content-based routing because it enables business logic (user tier, priority) to drive model selection without analyzing prompt content
Provides a single API surface for interacting with multiple LLM providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Ollama, etc.) by normalizing their different request/response formats into a common schema. Handles provider-specific quirks (token limits, parameter names, response structures) transparently, allowing applications to switch providers without code changes. Implements adapter pattern with provider-specific implementations for each API.
Unique: Implements provider abstraction as a routing concern rather than a separate SDK, allowing routing decisions and provider abstraction to be co-located in the same decision point
vs alternatives: More integrated than standalone abstraction libraries (like LangChain) because routing and provider selection happen together, reducing context switching
Monitors model availability in real-time by tracking request success/failure rates and response times, automatically removing models from rotation when they exceed error thresholds or timeout consistently. Implements circuit breaker pattern that temporarily disables failing models and periodically tests them for recovery, preventing cascading failures and wasted API calls to unavailable endpoints.
Unique: Integrates circuit breaker as a native routing concern rather than a separate middleware, allowing availability decisions to influence tier selection in real-time
vs alternatives: More responsive than manual health checks because it reacts to actual request failures rather than periodic probes
Groups multiple requests destined for the same model and sends them in batch operations where supported (e.g., OpenAI Batch API), reducing per-request overhead and API costs. Tracks costs per model and aggregates them for billing/analytics, providing visibility into which models are consuming budget. Implements batching with configurable window sizes and timeout thresholds to balance latency vs. cost savings.
Unique: Couples request batching with cost aggregation, providing both latency optimization and financial visibility in a single primitive
vs alternatives: More integrated than separate batching and billing systems because cost is tracked at the routing layer where batching decisions are made
Automatically optimizes prompts before sending to models by truncating context, removing redundant information, or reformatting based on model token limits and capabilities. Tracks token usage per request and model, enforcing hard limits to prevent exceeding context windows. Implements strategies like sliding window context, summarization, or hierarchical chunking to fit large contexts into model limits while preserving semantic meaning.
Unique: Integrates token management into the routing layer rather than requiring application code to handle context limits, with automatic optimization strategies
vs alternatives: More proactive than error-based truncation because it prevents token limit errors before they occur
Collects latency, throughput, and quality metrics for each model in the routing configuration, enabling data-driven decisions about tier assignments and fallback ordering. Provides built-in benchmarking tools to compare models on representative workloads, with support for custom evaluation metrics. Stores historical performance data to identify trends and detect performance regressions.
Unique: Provides built-in benchmarking as a first-class feature rather than requiring external tools, with metrics directly tied to routing decisions
vs alternatives: More integrated than standalone benchmarking tools because results directly inform tier assignments and fallback ordering
Automatically loads and parses documents from diverse sources (PDFs, Word docs, HTML, Markdown, code files, databases) into a unified in-memory representation using format-specific loaders and node-based document abstractions. Each document is decomposed into Document objects containing metadata, content, and relationships, enabling downstream processing without format-specific handling in application code.
Unique: Provides a unified loader abstraction (BaseReader interface) that normalizes 100+ data source connectors into a single Document/Node API, eliminating format-specific branching logic in application code. Loaders are composable and chainable, allowing sequential transformations (e.g., load → split → extract metadata → embed).
vs alternatives: Broader out-of-the-box loader coverage than LangChain's document loaders and more structured node-based decomposition than raw text splitting, reducing boilerplate for multi-source RAG pipelines.
Splits documents into semantically coherent chunks using multiple strategies (character-based, token-aware, recursive, semantic) with configurable overlap and chunk size. Preserves document hierarchy and metadata through a node tree structure, enabling retrieval systems to maintain context relationships and enable hierarchical re-ranking or parent-document retrieval patterns.
Unique: Implements a node-tree abstraction that preserves document hierarchy and enables parent-document retrieval patterns. Supports multiple splitting strategies (recursive, semantic, code-aware) with pluggable custom splitters, and automatically propagates metadata through the node tree.
vs alternatives: More sophisticated than LangChain's text splitters because it preserves hierarchical relationships and supports semantic splitting; better for complex document structures than simple character-based splitting.
LlamaIndex scores higher at 40/100 vs @kb-labs/llm-router at 27/100. @kb-labs/llm-router leads on adoption and ecosystem, while LlamaIndex is stronger on quality. However, @kb-labs/llm-router offers a free tier which may be better for getting started.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Processes documents containing mixed content (text, images, tables, code) by extracting and understanding each modality separately, then synthesizing information across modalities. Uses vision models for image understanding, specialized parsers for tables and code, and integrates results into a unified document representation for retrieval and generation.
Unique: Integrates vision models, table parsers, and code extractors into a unified multi-modal document processing pipeline that synthesizes information across modalities. Preserves modality-specific structure (table schemas, code formatting) while enabling cross-modal retrieval and generation.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive multi-modal support than text-only RAG; built-in vision integration reduces boilerplate for document understanding compared to manual vision API calls.
Enables streaming of LLM responses token-by-token and real-time retrieval updates, allowing applications to display partial results as they become available. Supports streaming from retrieval (progressive document discovery) and generation (token-by-token output) with backpressure handling and cancellation support for responsive user experiences.
Unique: Provides first-class streaming support for both retrieval and generation with automatic backpressure handling and cancellation. Enables progressive result display without custom async/streaming code in application layer.
vs alternatives: More integrated streaming support than manual LLM API streaming; built-in retrieval streaming and backpressure handling reduce complexity compared to custom streaming implementations.
Tracks API costs for LLM calls, embeddings, and other operations with per-query and per-session cost attribution. Provides cost optimization recommendations (e.g., batch processing, model selection, caching) and enables cost-aware query planning to balance quality and expense. Integrates with multiple LLM providers to normalize cost tracking across models.
Unique: Provides automatic cost tracking across multiple LLM providers with per-query attribution and cost optimization recommendations. Integrates with query execution to enable cost-aware planning without manual cost calculation.
vs alternatives: More integrated cost tracking than manual API billing review; built-in optimization recommendations reduce guesswork for cost reduction.
Enables building custom RAG pipelines by composing modular components (retrievers, synthesizers, agents, tools) through a declarative or programmatic API. Supports complex workflows with branching, loops, and conditional logic, with automatic dependency resolution and execution optimization. Pipelines are reusable, testable, and can be deployed as APIs or batch jobs.
Unique: Provides a flexible pipeline composition API supporting both declarative and programmatic definitions, with automatic dependency resolution and execution optimization. Enables complex workflows with branching and conditional logic without custom orchestration code.
vs alternatives: More flexible pipeline composition than fixed RAG architectures; better workflow support than manual component chaining.
Generates embeddings for documents/nodes using pluggable embedding providers (OpenAI, Hugging Face, local models) and stores them in a unified vector store interface that abstracts over multiple backends (Pinecone, Weaviate, Milvus, FAISS, Chroma, etc.). The abstraction layer enables switching vector stores without changing application code, and handles batching, retry logic, and metadata indexing.
Unique: Provides a unified VectorStore interface that abstracts 10+ vector database backends, enabling zero-code switching between providers. Handles embedding batching, retry logic, and metadata propagation automatically. Supports both cloud and local embedding models through a pluggable EmbedModel interface.
vs alternatives: Broader vector store coverage and more seamless provider switching than LangChain's vectorstore integrations; better abstraction consistency across backends than using raw vector store SDKs directly.
Retrieves semantically similar documents from vector stores using embedding-based similarity search, with optional re-ranking, filtering, and fusion strategies (hybrid search combining dense and sparse retrieval). Supports multiple retrieval modes (similarity, MMR, fusion) and enables custom retrieval logic through a pluggable Retriever interface that can combine multiple strategies.
Unique: Implements a pluggable Retriever abstraction supporting multiple retrieval strategies (similarity, MMR, fusion, custom) that can be composed and chained. Built-in support for re-ranking via LLM or cross-encoder, and hybrid search combining dense and sparse retrieval without custom integration code.
vs alternatives: More flexible retrieval composition than LangChain's retrievers; built-in re-ranking and fusion strategies reduce boilerplate for advanced retrieval pipelines.
+6 more capabilities