wehub/diegosouzapw--omniroute
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Deployments Models Agent Notes Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

chore: import upstream snapshot with attribution

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
wehub-resource-sync
2026-07-13 13:39:12 +08:00
commit d8dcd5f6d1
8604 changed files with 2479390 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/comparison/OMNIROUTE_VS_ALTERNATIVES.md
+70
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
---
title: "OmniRoute vs Alternatives"
version: 3.8.43
lastUpdated: 2026-07-01
---
# OmniRoute vs Alternatives
Objective feature comparison vs popular open-source AI routers.
> **Methodology**: Public repos audited 2026-Q2. Versions as listed.
> Submit corrections via PR — we want this to be accurate.
| Feature | OmniRoute 3.8 | LiteLLM 1.x | OpenRouter (SaaS) | Portkey |
| -------------------------------------------------- | :----------------------------------------------: | :------------: | :---------------: | :---------: |
| **Providers** | **237+** | ~100 | ~50 | ~30 |
| **Free-tier providers** | **90+** | n/a | passthrough | n/a |
| **Self-hostable** | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ⚠ paid |
| **OAuth providers (Claude, Codex, Copilot, etc.)** | **15+** | partial | ❌ | ❌ |
| **Auto-fallback combos** | **17 strategies** | priority-based | tier-based | weighted |
| **Fusion (parallel panel + judge synthesis)** | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| **Tier 1/2/3 fallback (subscription→cheap→free)** | ✅ + UI | manual | n/a | manual |
| **Token compression** | 10-engine pipeline (RTK + Caveman + LLMLingua-2) | none | none | none |
| **Multimodal generation (speech/music/video)** | ✅ | ❌ | passthrough | ❌ |
| **Built-in MCP server** | ✅ 95 tools, 30 scopes | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| **A2A protocol** | ✅ 6 skills | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| **Memory (FTS5 + vector)** | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| **Guardrails (PII, injection, vision)** | ✅ | partial | ❌ | ✅ paid |
| **Cloud agent integrations** | Codex, Cursor, Devin, Jules | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| **Circuit breaker per provider** | ✅ 3-state, lazy recovery | basic | ❌ | ✅ |
| **TLS fingerprint stealth (JA3/JA4)** | ✅ wreq-js | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| **Eval framework** | ✅ built-in | ❌ | ❌ | ⚠ paid |
| **MITM proxy (intercepts Cursor/Antigravity)** | ✅ cross-platform | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| **CLI with system tray (no Electron)** | ✅ | ❌ | n/a | n/a |
| **CLI machine-ID auto-auth** | ✅ | ❌ | n/a | n/a |
| **Dashboard** | Next.js 16 | basic | proprietary | proprietary |
| **i18n** | **42+ locales** | ❌ | ❌ | ⚠ |
| **Public agent skills (SKILL.md)** | ✅ 43 | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| **Tunnel support (Cloudflared, Tailscale, Ngrok)** | ✅ | ❌ | n/a | n/a |
| **License** | MIT | MIT | proprietary | proprietary |
## When to choose OmniRoute
- You self-host and want **maximum provider coverage** (237+, 90+ with a free tier)
- You need a **built-in MCP server** (LLM tools, memory, skills exposed as tools)
- You need **A2A protocol** for agent-to-agent workflows
- You want **fingerprint stealth** (JA3/JA4) to avoid detection by upstream CAPTCHAs
- You need **enterprise features** (guardrails, evals, audit trail) without a SaaS bill
## When to choose LiteLLM
- You're **Python-first** and need tight integration with `litellm.completion()`
- You need **mature production deployment recipes** (k8s, Helm charts)
- Your team already runs Python microservices
## When to choose OpenRouter (SaaS)
- You don't want to self-host
- You're fine paying per-token at SaaS markup
- You need a **single payment method** across all providers
## When to choose Portkey
- You need a **commercial SLA** with uptime guarantees
- You prefer a **managed dashboard** without ops overhead
- You need **enterprise compliance** features out of the box
---
_Last updated: 2026-06-28. Submit corrections via PR to keep this table accurate._
docs/comparison/meta.json
+5
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
{
"title": "Comparison",
"description": "How OmniRoute compares to alternatives",
"pages": ["OMNIROUTE_VS_ALTERNATIVES"]
}