CoreWeave vs Requesty (2026): Pricing, Features & Verdict
Requesty is our pick, scoring 6.9/10 against 6.4/10 for CoreWeave on our AI Software criteria. Its biggest advantage: higher Ease of Use score (8/10 vs 5/10). Only Requesty has a free plan.
Last updated: November 2026
CoreWeave
6.4/10
CoreWeave is a GPU-focused cloud that rents NVIDIA GPU and CPU instances, managed Kubernetes, and storage to teams training and serving AI models.
Requesty
6.9/10
Requesty is a managed LLM gateway that gives development teams one OpenAI-compatible endpoint to hundreds of AI models, with routing, failover, caching and spend controls.
Feature-by-Feature Comparison
| Feature | | |
|---|---|---|
| Scores | ||
| Overall Rating | 6.4/10 | 6.9/10 |
| Integration | 6/10 | 7/10 |
| Analytics | 6/10 | 8/10 |
| Customization | 7/10 | 7/10 |
| Ease of Use | 5/10 | 8/10 |
| Support | 7/10 | 5/10 |
| Cost | 6/10 | 6/10 |
| Scalability | 9/10 | 7/10 |
| Security | 7/10 | 7/10 |
| Pricing | ||
| Free plan | No | Yes |
| Cheapest paid plan | Contact for pricing | Contact for pricing |
| Estimated cost for 10 users | Contact for pricing | Free Free |
| Features | ||
| API and CLI | ||
| Managed Databases | Not listed | |
| Managed WordPress | Not listed | |
| Multiple Regions | Not listed | |
| Object Storage | Not listed | |
| Uptime SLA | ||
| Serverless Functions | Not listed | |
| Managed Kubernetes | Not listed | |
| Dedicated Servers | Not listed | |
| Cloud Compute | Not listed | |
| Content Delivery Network | Not listed | |
| Shared Hosting | Not listed | |
CoreWeave vs Requesty cost by team size
| Team size | CoreWeave | Requesty |
|---|---|---|
| 1 user | Contact for pricing | FreeFree |
| 5 users | Contact for pricing | FreeFree |
| 10 users | Contact for pricing | FreeFree |
| 25 users | Contact for pricing | FreeFree |
| 50 users | Contact for pricing | FreeFree |
The plan that fits each team size, billed monthly, before add-ons and usage charges. Each cost opens that tool's pricing calculator for the team size.
Who CoreWeave and Requesty suit
CoreWeave fits enterprise better; Requesty fits developers and startups better.
| Audience | CoreWeave | Requesty |
|---|---|---|
| Enterprise | 9/10Built for large AI training clusters, reserved multi-year contracts, and dedicated Direct Connect links. | 6/10SSO, RBAC, audit logs and custom SLAs are available, but only on the custom-priced Enterprise plan. |
| Developers | 7/10ML engineers can use kubectl, Helm, Slurm, and Terraform, though the platform offers little for general web app development. | 9/10It works as a drop-in replacement for the OpenAI SDK, with routing policies configured in a dashboard. |
| Startups | 6/10AI startups get on-demand GPUs without a minimum commitment, but there is no free tier and the best rates require contracts. | 8/10It has no seats or minimum spend, and the free tier needs no credit card. |
| SaaS Companies | Not rated | 8/10Failover across providers and per-key budget caps protect AI features in production. |
| Small Business | 2/10There is no conventional hosting, and minimum spend is reported to be high for light use. | Not rated |
Which One Should You Choose?
Why choose CoreWeave
- Higher Support score (7/10 vs 5/10)
- Higher Scalability score (9/10 vs 7/10)
- Better fit for enterprise (9/10 vs 6/10)
Why choose Requesty
- Has a free plan (CoreWeave does not)
- Higher Ease of Use score (8/10 vs 5/10)
- Higher Analytics score (8/10 vs 6/10)
- Better fit for developers (9/10 vs 7/10)
- Better fit for startups (8/10 vs 6/10)
Pros & Cons
CoreWeave
Pros
- Free internet egress and internal data transfer, which lowers the cost of moving large datasets and model checkpoints.
- Large inventory of current NVIDIA hardware, from L40S to GB200 NVL72, with InfiniBand for multi-node training.
- Spot rates are well below on-demand rates, for example $19.71 versus $49.24 per hour for an 8-GPU H100 node, and committed discounts reach up to 60%.
- The CKS control plane and SUNK Slurm scheduler are free, so you pay only for compute.
- A Terraform and OpenTofu provider manages clusters, VPCs, storage, and inference as code.
Cons
- No free tier or trial credits, and minimum spend is reported to be high even for light use.
- No managed databases, serverless functions, or CDN, so a second cloud is often needed.
- Regions are concentrated in North America and Europe, with limited Asia-Pacific coverage.
- The best pricing usually requires multi-year contracts and an enterprise sales process.
- Few public user reviews are available on G2 or Gartner to validate claims.
Requesty
Pros
- The endpoint is OpenAI-compatible, so migrating usually means changing only the base URL and API key.
- Fallback chains, weighted load balancing and latency routing are set in a dashboard and can be changed without redeploying.
- EU data residency is included even on the free tier.
- There are no per-seat fees or minimum spend, and bring-your-own-keys keeps existing provider rates.
- Analytics cover cost, latency, cache hits and failovers, with alerts sent to Slack and webhooks.
Cons
- The 5% markup on model cost becomes expensive at high monthly spend, compared with self-hosted LiteLLM.
- Its provider network is smaller than OpenRouter's (20 to 30 providers versus 70 or more).
- SSO, RBAC, PII controls and custom SLAs are only on the Enterprise plan.
- Prompt management and evaluation tools are thinner than Portkey's.
- The free tier is capped at 200 requests a day and covers free models only.
Not sold on either?
Frequently Asked Questions
Requesty scores higher on our AI Software criteria: 6.9/10 against 6.4/10 for CoreWeave. The largest gap is in Ease of Use: 5/10 for CoreWeave and 8/10 for Requesty.
Requesty has a free plan; CoreWeave does not list one.
CoreWeave is the better fit for enterprise: we rate it 9/10 for them, against 6/10 for Requesty.
