ANT vs Anthropic
Same Claude pricing. Zero markup. But with routing that only uses Opus when you need it.
| Feature | Anthropic | ANT (Antbase) |
|---|---|---|
| Token pricing | $3–$75/M | Same — zero markup |
| Models available | ~5 Claude models | 20,000+ across 30+ providers |
| Provider failover | None | Automatic — reroutes to OpenAI, Google, etc. |
| Smart routing | You pick Opus/Sonnet/Haiku | ANT picks per task |
| Cost optimization | Manual tier selection | 30-50% savings — Opus only when needed |
| Free models | None | Llama, Gemma, Qwen via ant:free |
| API format | Messages API only | OpenAI + Anthropic formats both supported |
| Code change | N/A | One line: change base_url |
Claude Opus costs $75/M output. Do you need it for every request?
Most teams hardcode Opus for everything. ANT shows 60%+ of requests are simple enough for GPT-4.1 mini ($1.60/M) or free models. Only complex reasoning benefits from Opus.
Anthropic outages don't have to break your app
With ANT, requests seamlessly reroute to GPT-5, Gemini, or DeepSeek when Anthropic is down. Same capability, zero downtime.
Both API formats work
ANT supports Anthropic Messages API at /v1/messages and OpenAI Chat Completions at /v1/chat/completions. Use whichever your codebase needs.
1M requests/month with Claude Opus
Anthropic Direct
All requests → Opus at $15/$75
~$4,500/mo
Through ANT (ant:auto)
20% Opus, 40% Sonnet, 30% GPT-4.1 mini, 10% free
~$1,800/mo
$2,700/mo saved
One line to switch
# Change one line — get intelligent routing
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://antbase.ai/v1",
api_key="ant_...",
)
response = client.chat.completions.create(
model="ant:auto", # ANT picks the best model
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Hello!"}],
)More Comparisons
Try ANT — keep your Anthropic code
Change one URL. Get intelligent routing, failover, and 20,000+ models. $5 free credits to start.