Hosted AI gateway · Verified August 16, 2026

TrustedRouter vs Requesty

Requesty is a hosted, closed-source gateway from a London seed-stage team: a flat 5% markup, spend budgets down to team, user, and key level, and EU residency on every plan. TrustedRouter differs on the prompt path: realtime inference keeps no durable prompt logs, on a source-available gateway whose running build is hardware-attested on three clouds.

Compare details
8decision dimensions
8official sources
1base URL to try TR
Choose Requesty when

Its operating model is the feature.

Choose Requesty when team- and user-level spend budgets with webhook alerts, EU (Frankfurt) data residency on every plan, a flat 5% markup, or its free tier of 200 requests per day decide the purchase.

Choose TrustedRouter when

Privacy needs evidence.

Choose TrustedRouter when the gateway itself must be verifiable: realtime inference keeps prompt and output bodies out of durable logs, the prompt path is source-available, and the running build serves live hardware attestations on GCP, AWS, and Azure that you can check rather than policy documents you must trust.

DimensionRequestyTrustedRouter
DeploymentManaged SaaS only; EU (Frankfurt) every plan; US/APAC residency on enterpriseHosted control plane, source-available (BUSL-1.1), with an attested API path
API surfaceOpenAI-compatible v1 plus Anthropic-style base URL; separate EU endpointOpenAI Chat Completions and Responses plus Anthropic Messages
Model access665 models, ~31 provider prefixes on live /v1/models (2026-08-16)500+ models across ~50 providers: prepaid, BYOK, and direct
RoutingCost/latency/availability strategies, failover, load balancing, cachingProvider fallback plus auto, cheap, fast, free, ZDR, E2E, and EU routes with composable privacy and jurisdiction preferences
ObservabilityReal-time cost and latency dashboards, per-key tracking, alerts, audit logsMetadata analytics and opt-in external broadcast
Prompt contentLogging on by default, 30-day EU retention; org-wide ZDR by written requestNo durable prompt or output logs on realtime inference; batch is opt-in encrypted retention
VerificationClosed source; SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 in progress as of Aug 2026Live gateway attestation on three clouds, bound to published source and release evidence
Billing5% markup on model cost; free tier 200 req/day; BYOK for 4 providersPrepaid at provider price + 5.5% ($0.01/M floor), or BYOK

What Requesty is

Requesty is a hosted LLM gateway run by Requesty Ltd, a London startup founded by Thibault Jaigu and Daniel Trugman. It raised a $3M seed led by 20VC in September 2025 and has shipped steadily since: an MCP gateway on the pay-as-you-go plan, coding-agent integrations, and open gateway-benchmark datasets published under CC BY 4.0 in April 2026. The product is an OpenAI-compatible endpoint at router.requesty.ai/v1, an Anthropic-style base URL, and a separate EU endpoint in Frankfurt (router.eu.requesty.ai/v1). Its public model list returned 665 models across roughly 31 provider prefixes when we fetched it on August 16, 2026. The homepage reports 70,000+ developers and 90+ billion tokens processed daily; those figures are self-reported. There is no self-hosted option, and the gateway source is not public — the GitHub org contains SDKs and CLI tooling under Apache-2.0 and MIT.

Where Requesty is the better choice

  • Spend controls. Hard per-key monthly caps with automatic cutoff, budgets per team, user, and key, alerts by email or webhook, and a management API to adjust limits programmatically. Our spend limits are per API key — daily, weekly, monthly, and lifetime caps with automatic cutoff and email alerts — so Requesty's edge here is team- and user-level budgets and webhook alerts, not the caps themselves.
  • Simple, slightly cheaper pricing. A flat 5% markup on the provider's model cost, with a worked example on the pricing page: a model costing $10 per million tokens costs $10.50 through Requesty. No seat fees or minimums, a free tier of 200 requests per day on free models, and $10 of sign-up credits.
  • EU residency on every plan. The Frankfurt endpoint is included at every tier, with UK and EU GDPR positioning and a DPA on request; the enterprise plan adds US (Virginia) and APAC (Singapore) residency.
  • An enterprise governance checklist. SSO (SAML/OIDC), four-level RBAC, audit logs, guardrails with PII detection, approved-model allowlists, and a 99.99% SLA claim on enterprise. We do not publish a comparable checklist today.

The logging default is the main divide

Requesty's own security FAQ states that "prompt and output logging is enabled by default" on self-serve plans; content is retained encrypted in the EU for up to 30 days. Disabling logging per API key is self-serve, but organisation-wide zero data retention is enabled on written request rather than from the dashboard. On free-plan accounts, Requesty's privacy policy permits using content for its own training. The security page hero says content is never stored; the FAQ on the same page is the accurate statement.

TrustedRouter's realtime path has no equivalent default to turn off: ordinary synchronous and streaming inference does not write prompt or output bodies to persistent storage (privacy, security). What we keep is operational metadata: request ids, selected model and provider, token counts, latency, cost, region, and an API-key hash. Batch is a separate opt-in mode that retains enclave-encrypted artifacts for up to 30 days. Privacy is also routable: trustedrouter/zdr restricts to providers with a cited contractual zero-retention posture, trustedrouter/e2e restricts to confidential-compute providers with provider-side end-to-end encryption (currently Tinfoil and Phala), and trustedrouter/eu forces an EU-focused provider order. The pools are listed on /models.

Trust by policy, trust by measurement

Requesty asks you to trust documents. Those documents are in reasonable shape for a seed-stage company — GDPR posture, quarterly penetration testing, encryption in transit and at rest — but SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 are both in progress, with Type II expected Q3 2026 per its own security page, and there is no source code to audit.

Our answer is different in kind, and it has its own limits. Every line that touches your prompt is public: the gateway and control plane are source-available under BUSL-1.1 (converting to Apache-2.0 four years after each release), and the official SDKs are Apache-2.0 or MIT. The running build is verifiable: api.trustedrouter.com serves live hardware attestations from GCP Confidential Space, AWS Nitro Enclaves, and Azure Confidential Containers, and a published verifier script checks the serving code against release digests (trust.trustedrouter.com). The limit: attestation covers our gateway, not downstream model providers. Once a prompt leaves for OpenAI or Anthropic, retention there is a policy question for both products, except on our E2E routes, where the provider's own enclave and encryption mechanisms apply.

Fees on the same basis

Both markups apply to the provider's token price, so the numbers compare directly: Requesty adds 5%; we add 5.5% with a $0.01 per million token floor (/pricing). On the markup alone, Requesty is cheaper. Details that cut both ways: our floor means free-model routes are never billed below $0.01/M, video on TrustedRouter is the provider quote plus 20%, and Requesty's 200-requests-per-day free tier has no TrustedRouter equivalent. On BYOK, Requesty supports four providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google AI Studio, and xAI; Vertex is not yet supported) and its docs do not state a BYOK fee; we support BYOK across providers, and our pricing page also publishes no separate BYOK fee number.

What we do not claim

  • We are young. Our public repos date from late April 2026 and our public benchmark history starts in June 2026. Requesty's seed closed in September 2025; neither company has a long operating track record.
  • We hold no published SOC 2 or HIPAA certification. We publish a DPA, BAA, and subprocessor list, and attestation evidence a reviewer can check directly, but on certifications neither product can hand you a current SOC 2 report today.
  • Their live catalog is larger: 665 models to our 561 catalog entries (a count that includes meta routes such as auto and zdr), as of August 16, 2026. We reference more upstream providers (about 49 to their 31).
  • We do not match Requesty's team- and user-level budgets, its webhook spend alerts, or its enterprise governance checklist of SSO, RBAC tiers, and PII guardrails.
Migration shape

Start with one real request.

Both gateways are OpenAI-compatible, so the wire change is small: swap the base URL (router.requesty.ai/v1 or router.eu.requesty.ai/v1) and the API key; Anthropic-SDK users swap the Messages base URL the same way. Model slugs need remapping to TrustedRouter ids. What does not carry over: Requesty routing policies, per-key spend caps and alerts, guardrail and PII rules, BYOK provider keys, and dashboards built on its analytics. Recreate routing with trustedrouter/auto, zdr, eu, or explicit provider preferences, and per-key spend limits on the new API keys. We publish no Requesty-specific migration doc; /docs/migrate-from-openrouter covers the same OpenAI-compatible mechanics.

Keep the first test small, stream the response, and compare output, latency, provider selection, and billed usage before moving production traffic.

Agent setup Run a small eval

TrustedRouter sideOpenAI SDK
from openai import OpenAI

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://api.trustedrouter.com/v1",
    api_key="sk-tr-v1-...",
)

with client.chat.completions.create(
    model="trustedrouter/zdr",
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Reply PONG"}],
    stream=True,
) as response:
    for chunk in response:
        print(chunk.choices[0].delta.content or "", end="")
Official evidence

Sources checked August 16, 2026

Report a change
All gateways

Questions

Is Requesty cheaper than TrustedRouter?

On the routing fee, yes. Both markups apply to the provider's token price, so they compare directly: Requesty adds 5%, we add 5.5% with a $0.01 per million token floor, and video on TrustedRouter carries a 20% markup. Requesty also has a free tier of 200 requests per day on free models, which we do not match. Exact per-route prompt and completion prices are published on our /models page, so you can compare a specific model before moving traffic.

Both offer zero data retention. What actually differs?

Defaults and evidence. On Requesty's self-serve plans, prompt and output logging is enabled by default with up to 30 days of encrypted EU retention; disabling it per key is self-serve, but organisation-wide ZDR requires a written request, and free-plan content may be used for Requesty's own training. On TrustedRouter, realtime inference never durably stores prompt or output bodies, and the gateway build enforcing that is hardware-attested on three clouds. Downstream provider retention is a policy question for both products, except on our trustedrouter/e2e routes, which are restricted to confidential-compute providers.

Which is further along for an enterprise compliance review?

Neither can hand you a SOC 2 report today. Requesty's SOC 2 Type II is expected Q3 2026 and ISO 27001 is in progress, and its enterprise plan offers SSO, four-level RBAC, guardrails with PII detection, and audit logs, which is a broader governance surface than ours. We publish a DPA, BAA, and subprocessor list, plus gateway attestation evidence a technical reviewer can verify directly, but no published certification either.

Workspace access

Sign in

Choose a sign in method to access your TrustedRouter workspace.

By signing in you agree to the terms of service and privacy policy.