LiteLLM vs Portkey Gateway (self-hosted)
Both are alternatives to Portkey. Here's how they stack up — verified facts, no spin.
Also searched as Portkey Gateway (self-hosted) vs LiteLLM — same comparison, one verdict.
LiteLLM and Portkey Gateway (self-hosted) are closely matched on ownership (90 vs 86) — this one comes down to pricing and to which trade-offs below you can live with.
LiteLLM
TOP PICKOne OpenAI-compatible API in front of 100+ providers, running on your own box.
LiteLLM is the de facto open gateway for this layer: a proxy that exposes an OpenAI-compatible endpoint in front of 100+ providers, with virtual keys, per-team budgets, rate limits, fallbacks and logging. You run it, so prompts never leave your infrastructure and there is zero markup on token spend — you pay the model providers directly. At 55k GitHub stars with commits landing daily it is the most widely adopted option here. Licensing is worth reading precisely: the core is MIT, while everything under the repository's enterprise/ directory carries a separate commercial licence.
Portkey Gateway (self-hosted)
Portkey's own routing engine, MIT-licensed and running on your hardware.
Worth knowing before you buy the platform: Portkey publishes its gateway as open source under the MIT licence, so the routing engine — 250+ models, failover, load balancing, caching — can be self-hosted at no cost. What the subscription adds is the hosted control plane: dashboards, prompt management, guardrails, analytics and support. If your requirement is the routing and not the console, this is the same engine without the bill or the third-party data path.
Side by side
10 points of comparison, every one read from a verified field. Green marks the side that wins a row outright. A dash means we do not hold that fact — never that it is zero.
| LiteLLM | Portkey Gateway (self-hosted) | |
|---|---|---|
| Sovereignty ScoreOur transparent 0–100 composite for data ownership and exit cost. | 90 | 86 |
| Open source | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Local-first data | Yes | Yes |
| License | MIT (core); enterprise/ directory under a separate commercial licence | MIT |
| Pricing | Free and self-hosted — you pay the model providers directly with no markup, plus hosting for a small VM (roughly $20–50/month). A paid enterprise tier exists for SSO, audit logs and support. | Free — the gateway is MIT-licensed. You pay only your model providers and your own hosting. |
| RAM to run it wellThe figure that actually matters, not the vendor's minimum. | 2 GB | — |
| Realistic running costWhat the box costs each month if you run it yourself. | $12–24/mo, against LLM gateway products charging per request | — |
| Setup timeHonest first-install estimate, not the marketing quickstart. | 1 hour | — |
| Ongoing maintenanceThe part nobody budgets for. | Low, but it is now in the path of every model call you make. | — |
LiteLLM is Macrostack's recommended Portkey alternative, so it's our pick here.
LiteLLM
Strengths
- +Zero markup — provider tokens are billed to you at cost
- +Prompts and completions never leave your infrastructure
- +Virtual keys, per-team budgets and rate limits built in
- +100+ providers behind one OpenAI-compatible endpoint; 55k stars, daily commits
Trade-offs
- −You run it: deployment, upgrades, monitoring and uptime are yours
- −Observability is basic out of the box — expect to pair it with a tracing tool
- −The MIT core stops at the enterprise/ directory; SSO and audit logging sit behind a commercial licence
- −A proxy you operate is another production dependency to keep healthy
Portkey Gateway (self-hosted)
Strengths
- +MIT licence on the full routing engine
- +Same 250+ model coverage as the hosted product
- +The lowest-friction exit from Portkey's paid tier — same engine, same config shape
- +No third party in the request path when self-hosted
Trade-offs
- −You lose the dashboards, prompt management and guardrails that justify the subscription
- −Development cadence is slower than LiteLLM's
- −Smaller self-hosting community, so fewer worked examples when something breaks
- −You are self-hosting a vendor's open core — feature direction still follows their commercial product
Which one fits you
The trade-offs above, turned into a decision. Find the line that describes your team.
Choose LiteLLM
if a lower exit cost matters more to you than any single feature, and zero markup — provider tokens are billed to you at cost.
Choose Portkey Gateway (self-hosted)
if mIT licence on the full routing engine.
Neither, yet
if both carry a real cost you should weigh first — you run it: deployment, upgrades, monitoring and uptime are yours, and you lose the dashboards, prompt management and guardrails that justify the subscription. If either of those is a dealbreaker for your team, the shortlist is wrong rather than the choice.
What it takes to run these yourself
Real requirements and honest running costs, not the vendor quickstart.
LiteLLM vs Portkey Gateway (self-hosted) — common questions
Is LiteLLM a better fit than Portkey Gateway (self-hosted) for llm gateways & routing?
It depends on what you are optimising for, and the honest split is this: LiteLLM scores 90 to Portkey Gateway (self-hosted)'s 86 on data ownership and exit cost, so it is the safer choice if you care about being able to leave. Portkey Gateway (self-hosted) earns its place on a different axis — mIT licence on the full routing engine. Neither is a wrong answer for every team; the table above is the actual comparison.
What happens if we want to switch later?
LiteLLM keeps its data local or in open formats, so leaving is an export rather than a negotiation. Portkey Gateway (self-hosted) is still self-hostable, so the files stay on your server either way — but it is not local-first by design, so check what its export produces before you rely on it.
Can I self-host LiteLLM or Portkey Gateway (self-hosted)?
Both can be self-hosted. The difference is what it costs you in time rather than whether it is possible — see the setup and maintenance rows above.
Are LiteLLM and Portkey Gateway (self-hosted) both alternatives to Portkey?
Yes — both appear in our Portkey comparison, which is why they are worth putting side by side. People usually arrive here already having decided to move off Portkey and now choosing between the two replacements, which is a narrower and much easier question.
Related alternative guides
Facts verified 2026-07-30. Licenses and pricing change — spotted something out of date? That's a correction we want.