LiteLLM vs vLLM

Introducing the LiteLLM ROI Calculator

Compare each engineer's LiteLLM gateway spend with the estimated effort of their merged pull requests. Open source and self-hosted.

Auto Router: 45% Lower Cost on 25 SWE-bench Tasks

We solved 23 of 25 SWE-bench Verified tasks with LiteLLM's experimental capability router for $11.15, compared with $20.27 using Opus 5.

Introducing LiteLLM Fusion: 56% More Tasks Solved Than Fable 5

LiteLLM Auto Router Fusion ran three models on the same task and synthesized their work, solving 14 of 21 Terminal-Bench tasks against 9 for Claude Fable-5 alone. Total spend rose 36%, cost per solved task fell 12%, and turn latency went up 5x.

MiniMax H3 on vLLM-Omni: From System-Wide Optimization to Real-Time Serving with FastVideo’s FastH3

How vLLM-Omni optimizes and scales the complete MiniMax H3 stack, then integrates FastVideo’s four-step FastH3 for generation faster than playback.

Qwen3-8B inference benchmark and FP8 on Blackwell

Independent benchmarks compare Qwen3-8B inference on an RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (96 GB) across three serving stacks (vLLM 0.27.1, SGLang 0.5.9, and llama.cpp CUDA). At concurrency 32 using BF16, vLLM achieved 1,725 aggregate tokens/s (TTFT p50 39 ms), SGLang 1,327 tok/s (TTFT p50 42 ms), and llama.cpp 428 tok/s (TTFT p50 316 ms). Applying an FP8 checkpoint to vLLM increased throughput by ~1.5x (aggregate 1,725 -> 2,597 tok/s; single-stream 86 -> 130 tok/s) with lower latency and no detected regressions on a fixed factual check. The author documents methodology, reproductions, and an sm_120-specific kernel workaround required to run FP8 on workstation Blackwell hardware.

• GPU used: RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell, 96 GB (workstation Blackwell, sm_120).
• Model benchmarked: Qwen3-8B across vLLM 0.27.1, SGLang 0.5.9, and llama.cpp (CUDA).
• BF16, concurrency 32 aggregate throughput: vLLM 1,725 tok/s; SGLang 1,327 tok/s; llama.cpp 428 tok/s.

Tokens-per-Second Benchmarks Explained

This technical guide explains what "tokens per second" (tok/s) actually measures for local LLM inference, why single-user tok/s numbers can be misleading, and how concurrency, batching, and prompt processing change the observed speed. It contrasts single-user latency with server throughput, highlights vLLM's continuous-batching advantage versus Ollama under high concurrency, defines related metrics (P99 latency, time to first token / TTFT), and provides practical measurement advice using tools like Ollama and vLLM and calculators from notAcalculator. The article also gives realistic tok/s expectations for different model sizes on consumer hardware and lists practical tips for reading and running benchmarks yourself.

• Tokens are the unit of both billing and speed for LLMs; tokenization affects cost and measured tok/s.
• Under a Red Hat benchmark on an A100 40GB with Llama 3.1 8B, vLLM peaked around 793 tok/s combined throughput versus about 41 tok/s for Ollama at high concurrency (~19x gap).
• vLLM's key innovation is continuous batching (plus PagedAttention), which increases total throughput under concurrency compared with single-request processing tools.