OnAPI

OnAPI's pitch is consolidation, and the parts of it that matter are concrete: one API key across GPT, Claude, Gemini, Sora, Veo and Banana; a value tier versus an official tier you can select per request; automatic retries and fallback routing; a unified analytics dashboard with per-request cost breakdown; and consistent response formatting so you're not rewriting parsing logic per provider. Where it earns its place is cost control. If you run high-volume, latency-tolerant work — batch summarization, bulk classification, research sweeps — routing that through the value tier instead of a premium official-tier path is the kind of change that shows up immediately on an invoice. The official tier exists so you don't have to accept that tradeoff everywhere: you keep your customer-facing or production-critical calls on the guaranteed-uptime path and downgrade everything else. What you give up is control and a layer of certainty. A gateway necessarily abstracts provider-specific parameters and behaviors, so anything relying on a niche feature of one provider's API may not survive the trip. Value-tier traffic runs on spot capacity, so expect higher latency and the occasional failed request — OnAPI's retry and fallback logic is designed for exactly that, but it isn't free of consequence. Adding a middle hop also means one more service that can affect your request path. The honest framing: OnAPI is infrastructure, not a product that hides complexity from you. It assumes you're comfortable making routing decisions and reading a usage dashboard. Teams without API experience should start with a single provider directly. Teams already spread across multiple providers, or planning to be, get the most from it.