Per-token API pricing is pay-as-you-go; running your own GPUs is a fixed monthly cost. This finds the request volume where the fixed cost of self-hosting finally undercuts the API — and whether you're above or below it today.
USD. API prices reviewed —. GPU rent is the optimistic case — real self-hosting adds ops overhead.
API scales with volume; self-host is flat. They cross at break-even.
Fixed vs variable
An API charges only for what you use, so it wins at low and spiky volume. GPUs cost the same idle or busy, so they only pay off once you keep them genuinely busy.
Utilization is everything
A GPU at 20% utilization costs five times as much per request as one at 100%. Spiky traffic that needs headroom for peaks is exactly where self-hosting economics get hard.
This is the optimistic case
Raw GPU rent ignores setup, redundancy, on-call, and updates. The real break-even sits higher than the pure-compute number — treat this as the floor, not the verdict.
Self-hosting is a fixed cost; an API is variable. Below the break-even volume the API wins; above it the fixed GPU cost spreads over enough requests to beat the per-token price. Break-even = GPU monthly cost ÷ API cost per request.
This compares raw GPU rent to API tokens. Real self-hosting also means setup and maintenance, redundancy, idle headroom for spikes, updates, and on-call — so the true break-even is higher. Treat this as the optimistic case.
It depends on model size, GPU, batching, and request length. Use a measured number if you have one, and keep utilization realistic — sustained high utilization is hard with spiky traffic.
No — data residency, latency, rate limits, and fine-tuning can justify self-hosting below break-even, while an API removes ops burden entirely. Use this as one input, not the whole decision.
No. Everything runs in your browser; nothing is sent to a server.
Get an email when we ship the next AI cost or infra tool.
No spam, no signup needed to use any tool. Unsubscribe any time.