Concentrate AI vs GitHub
AI Gateway Benchmark Comparison · Updated October 30, 2026
GitHub was faster in the only shared AI gateway benchmark.
Head to head
- KimiCold end-to-end latency · lower is betterGitHub faster4.34x
Concentrate AI
2.17sGitHub
499ms
Kimi
Median cold end-to-end latency over time
Concentrate AIGitHub
Work at Concentrate AI or GitHub? See where you stand every day, with full run logs, not just on benchmark Friday.Get stealth benchmarks →
Methodology
- One workload, every provider. The same script, payload, and model hit every provider, addressed the way its own API expects. Nobody gets a tuned or special path.
- Repeated on a schedule. Every suite runs many iterations per provider, automated on a recurring schedule, so results reflect steady state rather than one lucky request.
- Raw results published. Every run is committed as JSON to the public benchmarks repo, next to the code that produced it. Nothing is cherry-picked or held back.
- How this comparison is built. Each benchmark compares the two providers' medians; results within 5% count as roughly even. A comparison is published only when both providers completed the latency benchmark on at least two of the same model families reliably: at least 50% success for each provider, in benchmark runs from the last 30 days. A pair also qualifies when both providers completed at least 90% of runs in one shared benchmark. If a provider’s latest run of a benchmark failed, its most recent successful run from that window is used instead.
Frequently asked questions
Have another question? Email us.
GitHub was faster in the only shared AI gateway benchmark. In Kimi (October 30, 2026), GitHub had a median cold end-to-end latency of 499ms versus 2.17s for Concentrate AI, 4.34x faster.