AI Gateway logo

    AI Gateway

    TrueFoundry AI Gateway is the enterprise control plane for AI - unified access to 1000+ LLMs, MCP servers, and agents with centralized governance, cost tracking, and security. Deployable in VPC, on-prem, or air-gapped. SOC2, HIPAA, GDPR compliant

    Ratings and reviews

    4.6
    65 ratings
    2 star
    1 star
    83%
    15%
    2%
    0%
    0%
    2 AWS reviews
    |
    63 external reviews
    External reviews are from G2  and PeerSpot .

    Filters

    Review type

    AWS Marketplace reviews
    External reviews
    Reviews (65)
    Dhanesan Sridhar

    Centralized gateway has simplified multi-model chatbots and improved API governance

    Reviewed on Jul 26, 2026
    Review provided by PeerSpot

    What is our primary use case?

    I have been working as a Decision Scientist at Mu Sigma for around four years and have been using LLM Gateway for two years. Since I created a chatbot using LLM, we use different models to deploy, and since we are using different models, we need LLM Gateway to integrate into the particular chatbot.

    One example from my work experience is using LLM Gateway as a single entry point for multiple AI models. My chatbot sends the user prompt to the gateway, which handles authentication, routing to the appropriate LLM, logging, rate limiting, and monitoring. The gateway then returns the response to the chatbot. This setup makes it easier to switch models and manage usage without changing the chatbot's core application.

    Beyond basic request routing, I use LLM Gateway for centralized API management across different AI models. It provides consistent authentication, rate limiting, logging, monitoring, and fallback routing if one model is unavailable. This makes the chatbot more reliable, easier to maintain, and allows us to switch or compare models without changing the application logic. The main use case that we are using LLM Gateway for in the current scenario is centralized API management along with authentication and other related factors.

    What is most valuable?

    The standout feature for me is the centralized API management. It lets me manage multiple LLM providers through a single interface without changing my application code. I also value the built-in authentication, rate limiting, logging, and monitoring because they simplify operations and improve security. Another feature I find useful is failover and model routing, which keeps the chatbot available by automatically switching to another model if one provider is unavailable.

    What impressed me is how easy it is to manage multiple LLM providers from a single gateway. The centralized logging and monitoring make troubleshooting much easier, and the failover capabilities improve reliability in production. One feature I would like to see is more advanced analytics, such as a detailed usage dashboard, cost tracking per model, and AI-powered performance recommendations.

    What needs improvement?

    LLM Gateway is a strong platform, but there are a few areas where it could improve. I would like to see more advanced analytics and a cost-tracking dashboard with usage broken down by model, team, and application. Better AI-powered recommendations for model selection and performance optimization would be valuable. Additionally, more granular access control, easier debugging tools, and richer documentation with real-world examples would make the platform even more user-friendly and easier to adopt at scale.

    One additional improvement would be better observability and alerting with real-time notifications for API failures, latency spikes, and quota limits. I would also like to see built-in prompt versioning and A/B testing to compare prompts and models more easily. Furthermore, a wider range of pre-built integrations with common enterprise tools and more comprehensive documentation would make onboarding faster and improve the overall developer experience.

    Another improvement would be stronger AI governance features, such as built-in prompt versioning, approval workflows, and policy enforcement for enterprise teams. I would also like more detailed cost optimization insights, predictive usage analytics, and easier integration with observability platforms like OpenTelemetry. Finally, more pre-built templates, sample architectures, and migration guides would help new teams adopt the platform more quickly.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    LLM Gateway has been stable in my experience. It has been reliable for production workloads with consistent uptime and dependable request handling. Features like model routing, retries, and automatic failover help maintain service availability even when an underlying LLM provider experiences issues.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    The scalability of LLM Gateway is fantastic and very useful for us. It handles production workloads with consistent uptime and dependable request handling. Features like model routing, retries, and automatic failover help maintain service availability, even when an underlying LLM provider experiences issues.

    How are customer service and support?

    Our experience with customer support has been positive. The support team has been responsive, knowledgeable, and helpful in resolving technical issues and answering implementation questions. The documentation is also useful for common tasks, although I would like to see more advanced examples and troubleshooting guides for complex enterprise deployments.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    Before using LLM Gateway, we integrated directly with individual LLM provider APIs. As we added more models, managing separate integrations, authentication, monitoring, and failover became increasingly complex. We switched to LLM Gateway because it provides centralized API management, consistent security policies, better observability, and easier model routing. This reduces maintenance effort and made our AI infrastructure more scalable and reliable.

    How was the initial setup?

    My experience with pricing and licensing has been positive. The licensing model is straightforward, and the setup cost was reasonable for the value it provides. While the initial implementation required more configuration, it reduced long-term operational effort by centralizing AI model management. I think the pricing is fair for enterprise use, although more transparent cost forecasting and usage-based pricing insights would make it even better.

    What about the implementation team?

    Our experience with customer support has been positive. The support team has been responsive, knowledgeable, and helpful in resolving technical issues and answering implementation questions. The documentation is also useful for common tasks, although I would like to see more advanced examples and troubleshooting guides for complex enterprise deployments.

    What was our ROI?

    We have seen a positive return on investment. While we do not disclose exact financial figures, we have reduced the time required to integrate new AI models by around 40 to 50 percent, cut troubleshooting time by about 30 percent through centralized logging and monitoring, and improved service availability with automatic failover. This efficiency has reduced operational overhead and allowed the team to focus more on delivering new features rather than maintaining integrations, resulting in a clear ROI.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    My experience with pricing and licensing has been positive. The licensing model is straightforward, and the setup cost was reasonable for the value it provides. While the initial implementation required more configuration, it reduced long-term operational effort by centralizing AI model management. I think the pricing is fair for enterprise use, although more transparent cost forecasting and usage-based pricing insights would make it even better.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    Before choosing LLM Gateway, we evaluated a few alternatives, including building our own gateway for direct integration with providers such as OpenAI and Anthropic, as well as other AI gateway platforms. We ultimately chose LLM Gateway because of its centralized API management, strong security, governance features, reliable model routing and failover, and comprehensive monitoring. It offered the best balance of functionality, scalability, and ease of management for our requirements.

    What other advice do I have?

    I would rate the accuracy and reliability of the output highly. The quality mainly depends on the underlying language model, but LLM Gateway improves overall reliability through consistent request handling, model routing, retries, and failover. In my experience, responses have been stable and dependable, and the gateway helps maintain service continuity even when a provider has issues. Overall, it is a reliable platform for running production AI applications.

    My advice would be to start with a clear understanding of your AI use case and integration requirements. Take advantage of LLM Gateway's centralized API management, security, logging, and monitoring features from the beginning, as they make scaling much easier. Also, spend time setting up governance, access control, and observability early in the project. Finally, test different LLM providers through the gateway to find the best balance of performance, cost, and accuracy for your workloads. I would rate this product a 9 out of 10.

    Computer Software

    Seamless AI Gateway with Standout Observability and Model Routing

    Reviewed on Jul 23, 2026
    Review provided by G2
    What do you like best about the product?
    The AI gateway is seamless to use. Observability and model routing in particular are stand out features.
    What do you dislike about the product?
    The onboarding docs need to be providing more information
    What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
    Managing AI load, auth, budget observability
    reviewer2875980

    Centralized key tracking has improved cost visibility and supports detailed analytics

    Reviewed on Jul 22, 2026
    Review provided by PeerSpot

    What is our primary use case?

    I use LLM Gateway primarily for key tracking. Since we have agents, I need to know which agent is using which key and how much cost it is consuming per each message. LLM Gateway helps me manage the keys, store the keys, and save them, and it also provides an analytical dashboard with spend logs showing how much each agent is costing, what model it is using, and everything related to it.

    What is most valuable?

    What I appreciate most about LLM Gateway is that there is no need to maintain multiple keys. It provides one virtual key that I can use to access everything. The spend logs feature has been particularly helpful for my organization to understand the total spending on AI keys from OpenAI, Anthropic, and similar providers. I could also build a comprehensive dashboard to demonstrate to my management.

    What needs improvement?

    A better interface and improved logs would enhance my experience with LLM Gateway. A more user-friendly interface would be beneficial.

    The logs could be improved by providing better error messages. When issues arise, I usually check the logs to identify what went wrong. Currently, this can be difficult, but better error messages would make it easier for me to debug problems.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been using LLM Gateway for the past one and a half years in my career.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    Regarding stability, I have observed that it gets stuck a couple of times, which required me to restart it. For a couple of minutes it would get stuck and cause issues. However, in recent days, the stability has improved significantly. When I first started using it one and a half years ago, it used to be somewhat laggy and would get stuck intermittently, but now it performs well.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Regarding scalability, I have not faced any issues. My application has a very small number of users, so LLM Gateway works well for my current needs. I may potentially face scalability issues in the future, but I am not aware of any concerns currently because my application and user base are minimal.

    How are customer service and support?

    I have not contacted any technical support or customer support from LLM Gateway.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    I have not used anything similar to LLM Gateway before. When I decided to use LLM Gateway, I explored a couple of other options, but I proceeded with this one because I felt it was the best choice among all the alternatives and it was less expensive.

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial deployment was straightforward. I was able to set it up within a few days and begin using it.

    What about the implementation team?

    LLM Gateway does not require any maintenance on my end.

    What other advice do I have?

    I would advise new users that LLM Gateway provides better traceability of the models being used while maintaining security. It is secure, cost-efficient, and offers superior traceability. I would rate my overall experience with this product an 8 out of 10.

    Ravindra N.

    Simplified Kubernetes ML Deployments That Boost Productivity

    Reviewed on Jul 18, 2026
    Review provided by G2
    What do you like best about the product?
    What I like most about TrueFoundry is how it simplifies the deployment and management of machine learning models and AI applications on Kubernetes. It abstracts much of the infrastructure complexity, allowing teams to focus on building and improving models rather than managing cloud resources. Streamlined deployment of ML models and AI services with minimal DevOps effort. Built-in support for Kubernetes, autoscaling, and GPU workloads. Easy integration with popular ML frameworks and MLOps tools. Centralized monitoring, logging, and model management. Developer-friendly interface that accelerates the path from experimentation to production. For me, the most valuable feature is the simplified model deployment workflow. It significantly reduces the time and effort required to move machine learning models from development into a production environment while maintaining scalability and reliability. The biggest benefit is increased productivity. TrueFoundry enables faster deployment, easier infrastructure management, and more reliable AI application delivery, allowing teams to iterate on models more quickly and spend less time on operational overhead.
    What do you dislike about the product?
    The biggest drawback is the learning curve around infrastructure concepts. While TrueFoundry simplifies many operational tasks, understanding Kubernetes, networking, and deployment strategies is still helpful for getting the most out of the platform. Some advanced deployment and infrastructure options require a solid understanding of cloud-native concepts. Debugging deployment issues across complex ML pipelines can take time.
    What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
    TrueFoundry solves the challenge of deploying, scaling, and managing machine learning models and AI applications in production. Instead of manually configuring cloud infrastructure, Kubernetes clusters, and deployment pipelines, it provides a streamlined platform for running AI workloads reliably. Simplifies deployment of ML models and AI applications to production. Automates infrastructure management, scaling, and resource allocation. Supports GPU workloads and integrates with popular machine learning frameworks. Provides centralized monitoring, logging, and model lifecycle management. Reduces the operational overhead of maintaining production AI services. In my workflow, TrueFoundry helps shorten the path from model development to deployment. Rather than spending time configuring infrastructure and deployment pipelines, I can focus on improving models and delivering AI features more quickly. The biggest benefit is faster AI deployment and improved operational efficiency. TrueFoundry reduces infrastructure complexity, accelerates model delivery, and helps ensure AI applications remain scalable, reliable, and easier to manage in production.
    Shravan Revanna

    Centralized observability has boosted AI delivery and routes requests calmly across providers

    Reviewed on Jul 18, 2026
    Review from a verified AWS customer

    What is our primary use case?

    My main use case for LLM Gateway is that as new AI use cases emerge, such as a new internal agent or a customer-facing assistant, teams do not start from scratch; they simply plug into the gateway.

    One clear example of how my team has used LLM Gateway for one of those use cases is our internal AI assistant that helps operations and support teams get quick answers about orders, inventory, and internal processes. Every time that assistant makes a call to a language model, the request goes through the gateway, so we automatically capture which model was used, how long it took, how many tokens were consumed, and whether there were any errors. If a provider slows down, we can route traffic to a fallback model without changing application code, which saved us from scrambling during a couple of peak load situations.

    What is most valuable?

    LLM Gateway quietly becomes part of the default developer workflow; new AI services start with the gateway by default, which means we do not have to relitigate logging, monitoring, or provider switching every single time. It lowers the friction to experiment but keeps things observable and manageable as we scale.

    For us, the best features LLM Gateway offers are centralized observability, multi-provider routing, and resilience. Centralized logs and metrics make debugging and cost tracking far easier. Routing lets us switch or test models without touching application code, and retries plus fallback strategies add resilience when providers experience issues. Additionally, it is valuable having a single place for policy concerns such as rate limits and consistent authentication.

    The feature that has had the biggest impact on my day-to-day work is centralized observability; that is the feature we feel every day. When something is off, latency spikes, cost jumps, or a prompt misbehaves, we check one dashboard and trace it. That beats digging through five services' logs, and it also helps during rollouts because we can see real usage and cost almost immediately. Routing and fallbacks matter, but observability saves us time every single week.

    The features work best as a bundle. Observability tells you what is happening, routing lets you act on it quickly, and resilience keeps user impact low while you fix root cause. It is that combination that makes it feel like infrastructure you can rely on, rather than a loose set of SDK calls.

    LLM Gateway has impacted our organization positively by making us faster and calmer. We are faster because spinning up new AI features does not mean reinventing provider plumbing, and we are calmer because when something goes wrong, we know where to look and we have levers to pull, which reduces fire drills. It also builds confidence to experiment because rollbacks and provider changes feel safer.

    What needs improvement?

    I see a few areas where LLM Gateway can be improved, including clearer cost guardrails and budget alerts that are more proactive, smoother project and workspace organization as the number of services grows, and more first-class support for prompt versioning and experiment tracking so that product teams can self-serve comparisons more easily. I also think richer audit trails and policy controls for larger organizations would be valuable to have as we scale.

    More prescriptive examples or reference architectures for common patterns such as RAG, agent workflows, and evaluation pipelines would help teams avoid reinventing patterns and speed up onboarding even more.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been using LLM Gateway for about one year.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    LLM Gateway is stable for us; it has been steady with solid uptime, and there have been no major outages attributable to the gateway. Most issues we have seen have come from upstream model providers, and the retry fallback policies help smooth those. Operationally, it has been low maintenance, which is the point; you do not want the gateway to become something you have to monitor constantly.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    LLM Gateway scales well for us so far; we have ramped from a couple of internal tools to multiple production workloads without major re-architecture. Performance has been predictable under higher request volumes, and we have not experienced rate limiting or throughput bottlenecks attributable to the gateway. If anything, the choke points tend to be provider-side or in our application logic, not the gateway itself. As we grow, more predictive performance analytics and proactive alerts would help us stay ahead of spikes rather than just react.

    How are customer service and support?

    Customer support for LLM Gateway has been responsive and technical; when we had implementation questions early on, responses were quick and specific, not generic replies. Most issues did not require escalations because the documentation covered the basics, but when we did reach out, turnaround was solid. Ongoing, we have not needed much hand-holding, which is a good sign.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We did not previously use a different solution; we did not have a formal gateway before. It was direct SDK integrations in each service, which meant duplicated retry logic, scattered logging, and painful provider comparisons. We considered building a thin in-house layer but chose a dedicated gateway to avoid ongoing maintenance and get observability and routing out of the box. We switched centralized concerns we were solving poorly in ten places into one place we can manage and trust.

    What was our ROI?

    I can share specific outcomes or metrics that show the positive impact; we have seen a measurable return, though I would frame these as solid internal estimates rather than formally tracked KPIs. We see roughly thirty to forty percent less development effort on new AI features because teams integrate once with the gateway instead of building custom provider logic each time. Model evaluations are about fifty percent faster since we can switch or compare providers through configuration rather than code changes. On the cost side, centralized observability has helped trim unnecessary LLM spend by around fifteen to twenty percent by surfacing inefficient prompts and duplicate requests. Troubleshooting is also about thirty to forty percent faster because all the signal is in one place. Together, we would estimate a twenty to twenty-five percent lift in engineering productivity on AI work, and from a business angle, new AI capabilities reach production about twenty-five to thirty percent faster because the plumbing is already in place. The return has come more from developer velocity and operational clarity than from direct license savings.

    We have seen a return on investment; I would call these relevant metrics internal estimates more than audited KPIs. We are seeing roughly thirty to forty percent less development effort on new AI features, about fifty percent faster model evaluation cycles, fifteen to twenty percent lower LLM spend from spotting inefficient prompts and shifting to better-fit models, and thirty to forty percent faster troubleshooting thanks to centralized logs. All told, that shows up as maybe a twenty to twenty-five percent productivity lift for engineers working on AI features. We have not reduced headcount because of the gateway, but we have avoided adding operational overhead as AI usage grew, which is where the return feels strongest.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing for LLM Gateway is that it is reasonable and predictable for us. The setup was light, mostly involving integration and configuration rather than heavy infrastructure work. Pricing felt aligned with infrastructure value and more like a shared platform cost than per-seat overhead. The real ROI shows up in reduced engineering time and consolidation of tooling, rather than deep license arbitrage.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    I evaluated other options before choosing LLM Gateway; I looked at a couple of other commercial gateways and debated rolling our own. Direct integrations were the baseline but became hard to manage as use cases multiplied. Building in-house looked flexible, but it would have pulled engineers into long-term platform maintenance. I chose this gateway for the balance of multi-provider support, centralized observability, and ease of integration with our existing AWS stack. It let us standardize quickly without becoming a platform team, which kept our focus on shipping product features rather than running gateway infrastructure.

    What other advice do I have?

    My advice for others looking into using LLM Gateway is to start with a clear use case and onboard one or two services first. It is important to get logging, cost views, and fallbacks wired in early, then bake it into your default service template so teams do not bypass it. Do not over-rotate on exotic routing on day one; establish visibility first and treat it as an enabling layer, not a silver bullet. Keep prompt quality, evaluations, and data governance as first-class concerns alongside the gateway, not after.

    If you are scaling AI features across teams, centralization pays off. Start simple, instrument early, and allow the gateway to reduce toil while you focus on product value. I would rate my overall experience with LLM Gateway as an eight out of ten.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Public Cloud

    If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

    Amazon Web Services (AWS)
    reviewer2870316

    Optimizes AI workflow costs and analytics but needs custom dashboards for flexible monitoring

    Reviewed on Jul 09, 2026
    Review from a verified AWS customer

    What is our primary use case?

    My main use case for LLM Gateway is building an agentic system, a harness wherein we can build multiple use cases that will be supported mainly for PDLC and SDLC automation.

    Whenever we want to use LLM Gateway for PDLC or SDLC automation, we want to create spec-to-code or code-to-spec, and we want to convert ideas into specifications.

    Whenever we want to create any documentation or any features or epics from converting from code to spec-to-code using LLM Gateway, we need to call multiple LLMs, and we want some intermediate gateway wherein it will handle our authentication, authorization, as well as the cost optimizations can be seen. For that purpose, we have used LLM Gateway. Some of the use cases need multi-modal calls wherein we can use multiple models at the same time, so LLM Gateway is a valuable gateway to work with.

    What is most valuable?

    The best features LLM Gateway offers include cost optimization, multi-modal support, and authentication and authorization all in one place. The way the API gateway handles requests is a major advantage.

    The integration capabilities are very simple, and it can be integrated with any open-source tools. We were using Temporal and OpenHands, and integration was quite straightforward. You can create an instance of LLM Gateway on a local machine as well, which is very helpful for developers to work with it, and you can have analytics drawn with the activities.

    LLM Gateway has positively impacted my organization because costs have increased with AI, and as a Solution Architect, I need to consider the cost optimization part. I need to understand how many tokens are being consumed and where we are heading. LLM Gateway gives us analytics on the cost optimization and cost expense, so as an architect, we can understand and perform our cost optimization part based on that information.

    What needs improvement?

    If LLM Gateway could give us a facility or capability to create our own dashboards depending on our requirements, it would be helpful as an improvement.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been using LLM Gateway for the last eight months, and we are using it for one of our AI-led frameworks.

    What other advice do I have?

    The advice I can give to others looking into using LLM Gateway is that it is very simple to use, but at the same time, you need to be very sure while creating the API keys that you are not sharing these API keys with any external applications. I find this process quite interesting, fast, and responsive. I rated this review a seven out of ten.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Public Cloud

    If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

    Amazon Web Services (AWS)
    Akashkhurana Hirana

    Centralized AI routing has strengthened data security and simplified multi-model workflows

    Reviewed on Jun 13, 2026
    Review provided by PeerSpot

    What is our primary use case?

    Our main use case for LLM Gateway is that our company has partnerships with multiple LLM providers including OpenAI, Claude, and Gemini. LLM Gateway acts as an interface between all three providers. I would describe it as a router that functions as middleware between our application and the AI providers so that we do not need to give or share API keys to each team.

    Our team calls LLM Gateway from their application, and all the keys and routing configurations are present in LLM Gateway. Its responsibility is to connect with Claude, OpenAI, or Gemini based on the request we receive.

    We have an application in which users can ask anything. For example, if a user is asking a general question, we call LLM Gateway and pass the model name as ChatGPT. It internally uses ChatGPT itself. If the question is related to the application we created, it internally uses RAG and goes to Claude. LLM Gateway is responsible for redirecting the request based on context.

    LLM Gateway also has an additional feature where if one of the models is unavailable at a time, it automatically redirects the request to another model, so there is no downtime in the application. The automatic failover feature ensures that if one model is not available, LLM Gateway redirects the request to another model.

    What is most valuable?

    The best features LLM Gateway offers include multi-provider AI access and the ability to access around 200 plus models available in the market. We just need to pass our key and set up this one, and it can access all the available models. Apart from this, it automatically routes the request based on context if we set it in LLM Gateway. Another feature is the automatic failover functionality where if something goes wrong, it redirects the request to another model. LLM Gateway also provides usage analytics with a dashboard where we can check the current usage of each model and see how many requests are going to each model. It persists data for around 30 days, so we can review usage over the last month. LLM Gateway can be self-hosted as well, which is beneficial for large companies with security concerns.

    I find multi-provider access and failover to be the most valuable features day-to-day. Multi-provider access integrates all available models, acting as a router between the application and LLM Gateway. If my application is using four different models, I only need to call LLM Gateway, which manages everything. We also do not need to share sensitive API keys, as the developer can directly call LLM Gateway, which handles everything seamlessly. The failover feature automatically redirects requests if something goes wrong in one model, and it is incredibly easy to configure. It does not take more than a minute to set up.

    One positive impact of LLM Gateway on my organization is reducing security risk. If we give API keys to everyone, they can misuse them outside the organization. However, we no longer share API keys, as users just need to call our LLM Gateway, and the API keys remain secret and contained within our on-premises setup. Security-wise, it has significantly reduced our organization's risk.

    What needs improvement?

    Regarding improvements, I think the pricing can be more competitive. LLM Gateway takes 5% of the token usage, which feels a bit high. While they do have a free tier, the costs for the enterprise edition are somewhat high. As a new product in the market, it should charge less compared to competitors. However, I think the cost is comparable or slightly higher.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been using LLM Gateway for around 1.5 years. It is a new product in the market.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    LLM Gateway is stable. It is a new product, but it is heading in the right direction.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Currently, we are using around 20 models, and it works fine. LLM Gateway claims integration with around 200 models, but we have only utilized 20 in our organization so far.

    How are customer service and support?

    The customer support and documentation for LLM Gateway are pretty good. Although the community is a bit sparse because of its newness, the available support is very effective. I rate the customer support a perfect 10.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    I previously used Portkey in a different organization but have not switched from Portkey to LLM Gateway within the same organization.

    How was the initial setup?

    I usually start with the free tier, which is very good. For the enterprise version, LLM Gateway charges as other products do, but the setup time is quick, under a minute, with no cost for the free tier. After using LLM Gateway, we see that our security risks have reduced. In my organization, we do not only look at ROI; we also consider security threats. Since adopting LLM Gateway, the complexity of our projects has decreased, and the security concerns have lessened. I estimate it has saved us around 20-30% of our time, and around 30% sounds reasonable.

    What was our ROI?

    After using LLM Gateway, we see that our security risks have reduced. In my organization, we do not only look at ROI, but we also consider security threats. Since adopting LLM Gateway, the complexity of our projects has decreased, and the security concerns have lessened. I estimate it has saved us around 20-30% of our time, and around 30% sounds reasonable.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    I usually start with the free tier, which is very good. For the enterprise version, LLM Gateway charges as other products do, but the setup time is quick, under a minute, with no cost for the free tier.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    I have not evaluated other options. The setup cost, time, and the free tier availability made LLM Gateway an easy choice for us.

    What other advice do I have?

    The accuracy of LLM Gateway's output is quite good. If one model is down, it automatically redirects requests to another model, which is a very beneficial feature. My advice for others looking into using LLM Gateway is to start with it. It takes very little time to set up and has a user-friendly dashboard that displays model usage. You can also set thresholds, specifying the number of tokens or costs for each model, which is very convenient. Depending on the product size, since it is new in the market, our usage has been satisfactory. I have given this review a rating of 9 out of 10.

    Tara B.

    Exceptional Prototyping Speed with One-Click Deployments and Branch-Based Iteration

    Reviewed on May 03, 2026
    Review provided by G2
    What do you like best about the product?
    The prototyping speed is exceptional thanks to the one-click deployment system. The ability to deploy specific branches or commits makes rapid iteration easy, and the built-in SSH server support for VS Code has noticeably improved my day-to-day productivity.
    What do you dislike about the product?
    I’d like to see more robust Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) features to better safeguard our production environments. An approval-based workflow for deployment rollouts would also be a major benefit, since it would add an extra layer of security and oversight before changes go live, especially in a high-stakes environment.
    What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
    It basically eliminates the need for a developer to dive into complex DevOps work. It feels like a plug-and-play solution: you choose what you need without having to master the underlying infrastructure details. That emphasis on “quick iterations” is crucial for our project timelines, and it helps keep the team focused on building features instead of spending time managing servers.
    Deepak M.

    TrueFoundry Unifies Infrastructure, Deployment, and Governance for Production-Ready AI

    Reviewed on Apr 13, 2026
    Review provided by G2
    What do you like best about the product?
    What I like best about TrueFoundry is its ability to bring together infrastructure, deployment, and governance into a cohesive platform, making it significantly easier to move AI use-cases from experimentation to production. It strikes a strong balance between technical flexibility and enterprise readiness, which is critical for scaling AI adoption.
    What do you dislike about the product?
    The platform is very strong from an infrastructure and LLMOps perspective. The main opportunity I see is in expanding pre-built, industry-specific accelerators or templates, which could significantly improve time-to-value and make it easier for organizations to scale AI adoption more quickly.
    What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
    TrueFoundry is solving the challenge of operationalizing AI at scale by unifying deployment, infrastructure management, and observability into a single platform. This reduces the complexity involved in moving from experimentation to production.

    For us, the benefit is faster time-to-value, better coordination across teams, and the ability to scale AI use-cases in a controlled and cost-efficient manner, which is critical for enterprise adoption.
    Shobhit V.

    Ensures Business Continuity with Exceptional Support

    Reviewed on Apr 09, 2026
    Review provided by G2
    What do you like best about the product?
    I like trueFoundry's excellent customer service, which is crucial when you're under time pressure and need to understand complex AI gateway systems. The breadth of product features is impressive, and the CLI for config as code is beneficial as it integrates seamlessly with our CI/CD pipeline, making changes efficient and systematic. The initial setup was easy, and the platform provides a central view for usage and cost monitoring while ensuring business continuity by automatically routing traffic to another provider if there's an outage.
    What do you dislike about the product?
    I can't think of anything. But I think they should expand into LLM evaluations as well.
    What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
    I use trueFoundry for AI Gateway management, ensuring business continuity during provider outages, and monitoring usage and cost. The CLI integrates with CI/CD to streamline changes, and good customer support helps in navigating its complexities under pressure.