| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Paid |
| Capabilities | 10 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Executes LLM inference on custom wafer-scale silicon chips that eliminate memory bottlenecks inherent in GPU-based systems. The architecture achieves 2000+ tokens/second throughput by distributing computation across a single monolithic die rather than relying on discrete GPU memory hierarchies. Supports streaming token generation for real-time applications, with claimed 20x faster inference than cloud GPU providers for equivalent model sizes.
Unique: Uses monolithic wafer-scale chips (entire processor on single die) instead of discrete GPUs, eliminating memory bandwidth bottlenecks that constrain token generation speed on traditional GPU clusters. This architectural choice enables 2000+ tokens/second throughput without requiring distributed memory coherence protocols.
vs alternatives: Faster token generation than OpenAI, Anthropic, or GPU-based providers (claimed 20x improvement) due to custom silicon eliminating memory hierarchy latency, though actual speedup varies significantly by workload and model size.
Exposes Cerebras inference as an OpenAI-compatible REST API, allowing developers to swap Cerebras as a backend provider without modifying application code. Implements the same request/response schemas, authentication patterns, and error handling conventions as OpenAI's API, enabling use of existing OpenAI client libraries (Python, Node.js, etc.) against Cerebras infrastructure. Endpoint structure, specific HTTP methods, and payload schemas are not documented.
Unique: Implements OpenAI API compatibility at the protocol level, allowing existing OpenAI client code to target Cerebras infrastructure by changing only the API endpoint URL and authentication key. This reduces migration friction compared to providers requiring custom SDKs or API schema changes.
vs alternatives: Easier to integrate than proprietary API providers (e.g., Anthropic, Cohere) because it reuses existing OpenAI client libraries and developer familiarity, though actual compatibility depth (streaming, function calling, vision) is undocumented.
Provides access to multiple open-source LLM families (Llama, GLM, Qwen, GPT-OSS) deployed on Cerebras hardware, allowing developers to select models by family and size. Routing logic determines which model executes on the wafer-scale infrastructure based on request parameters. Specific model versions, context windows, training data, and capability differences are not documented. Default model selection behavior is unknown.
Unique: Hosts multiple open-source model families on unified wafer-scale hardware, allowing model selection without infrastructure switching. Unlike cloud providers that silo models on separate GPU clusters, Cerebras routes requests to the same silicon, potentially enabling faster model switching and unified performance characteristics.
vs alternatives: Provides access to diverse open-source models (Llama, Qwen, GLM) on a single hardware platform with consistent latency, whereas alternatives like Hugging Face Inference API or Together AI require managing separate endpoints per model or provider.
Implements three-tier rate limiting (Free, Developer, Enterprise) with relative performance differentiation but no absolute rate limit numbers documented. Free tier provides baseline access to all models with unspecified rate limits. Developer tier ($10+ minimum) offers 10x higher rate limits than free tier (absolute numbers unknown). Enterprise tier provides custom rate limits negotiated with sales. Specific tokens-per-second or requests-per-minute limits are not published, making capacity planning difficult.
Unique: Uses relative rate limit tiers (10x multiplier between Free and Developer) rather than publishing absolute limits, creating a simplified pricing model but reducing transparency. This approach prioritizes pricing simplicity over developer predictability.
vs alternatives: Simpler tier structure than OpenAI (which publishes specific tokens-per-minute limits per model) but less transparent for capacity planning, requiring developers to contact sales for concrete numbers.
Offers Cerebras Code product as separate subscription tiers (Pro: $50/month for 24M tokens/day, Max: $200/month for 120M tokens/day) with fixed daily token allowances. Quota resets daily and applies specifically to code generation tasks. Pricing is presented as subscription cost per month rather than per-token, simplifying budgeting but reducing flexibility for variable workloads. Pro tier is marked 'sold out' on pricing page.
Unique: Separates code generation (Cerebras Code) from general inference (Cerebras API) with distinct subscription tiers and daily token quotas, allowing developers to budget code generation separately from other LLM tasks. This segmentation differs from unified per-token pricing models.
vs alternatives: Simpler budgeting than per-token models (GitHub Copilot Plus is $20/month with unlimited tokens, but Cerebras Code Max at $200/month provides 120M tokens/day which may be cheaper for high-volume teams), though the 'sold out' Pro tier limits accessibility.
Enables LLM inference to generate voice responses in real-time, supporting conversational AI applications that require audio output. The documentation claims 'instant, accurate voice responses' and 'conversations that flow,' suggesting streaming audio generation with low latency. Implementation details (text-to-speech engine, supported languages, audio formats, streaming protocol) are not documented.
Unique: Combines LLM inference and voice synthesis on wafer-scale hardware, potentially enabling lower-latency voice responses than systems that chain separate text generation and TTS services. Specific implementation (whether TTS is on-device or external) is undocumented.
vs alternatives: Potentially faster voice response generation than chaining OpenAI API + external TTS (e.g., ElevenLabs) due to co-located inference and synthesis, though actual latency advantage is unverified and no benchmarks are provided.
Supports multi-agent systems and complex reasoning tasks, with claims of 'complex reasoning in under a second.' The capability appears to enable chaining multiple LLM calls or agent interactions on Cerebras hardware. Implementation details (agent framework, state management, inter-agent communication protocol, reasoning patterns) are not documented. Unclear whether this is a native Cerebras feature or compatibility with external agent frameworks.
Unique: Claims to execute multi-agent reasoning workflows on wafer-scale hardware with sub-second latency, potentially reducing inter-agent communication overhead compared to distributed agent systems. However, implementation approach (native vs framework-compatible) is undocumented.
vs alternatives: Potentially faster multi-agent execution than cloud-based agent frameworks (LangChain + OpenAI) due to co-located inference, but actual speedup is unverified and no agent framework integration is documented.
Cerebras inference is available through third-party integrations including AWS Marketplace (reseller), OpenRouter (unified API aggregator), Hugging Face Hub (model access), and Vercel (deployment platform). These integrations allow developers to access Cerebras without direct API integration, using existing platform workflows. Integration depth, feature parity, and pricing through each platform are not documented.
Unique: Distributes Cerebras inference through multiple cloud platforms (AWS, Vercel) and aggregators (OpenRouter, Hugging Face), reducing friction for developers already embedded in those ecosystems. This multi-channel distribution differs from providers that require direct API integration.
vs alternatives: Easier adoption for AWS and Vercel users compared to providers requiring custom integration, though platform integrations may introduce latency or cost overhead compared to direct API access.
+2 more capabilities
Manages conversation history as immutable thread objects stored server-side, where each message appends to a thread rather than requiring clients to maintain conversation state. Threads persist across API calls and sessions, enabling stateless client implementations. The architecture decouples conversation management from model invocation, allowing assistants to be reused across multiple independent threads without state collision.
Unique: Server-side thread abstraction eliminates client-side conversation state management; threads are first-class API objects with immutable append-only semantics, not just message arrays. This differs from stateless LLM APIs where clients must manage context windows and history truncation.
vs alternatives: Eliminates context window management burden compared to raw LLM APIs (e.g., Claude API, GPT-4 completions), but adds latency and cost overhead vs. in-memory conversation state in frameworks like LangChain
Provides a managed Python 3.11 execution environment accessible via the Code Interpreter tool, where assistants can write and execute arbitrary Python code with access to common libraries (pandas, numpy, matplotlib, scikit-learn). Code runs in isolated sandboxes with file I/O, plotting, and data visualization capabilities. Execution results (stdout, stderr, generated files) are returned to the assistant for further processing.
Unique: Managed Python sandbox integrated directly into the agent loop — assistants can iteratively write, execute, and refine code without external compute provisioning. Execution results feed back into the LLM context, enabling self-correcting workflows. Differs from Replit or Jupyter APIs which require explicit session management.
vs alternatives: Simpler than provisioning Jupyter kernels or Lambda functions for code execution, but slower and less flexible than local Python execution; better for lightweight analysis than heavy ML workloads
OpenAI Assistants scores higher at 76/100 vs Cerebras API at 55/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
When an assistant calls a tool, the run enters a 'requires_action' state. Clients must submit tool call results via the submit_tool_outputs API, which resumes the run with the tool results injected into context. This enables iterative workflows where assistants can call tools, receive results, and refine responses based on results. Tool results are stored in the thread and visible to subsequent runs, enabling multi-turn tool-assisted reasoning.
Unique: Tool results are submitted explicitly via API, not returned in-band — enables clients to process, validate, or transform results before injection. Runs pause in 'requires_action' state, giving clients full control over tool execution and result handling.
vs alternatives: More flexible than automatic tool execution (clients can implement custom logic), but requires more client-side code than frameworks like LangChain where tool execution is automatic; enables external tool integration without modifying assistant code
Assistants can be created from scratch or cloned from existing assistants, copying all configuration (instructions, tools, model, file attachments). Cloning enables template-based assistant creation where a base assistant is configured once and then cloned for different use cases or users. Cloned assistants are independent — changes to one don't affect others. This reduces setup overhead for creating similar assistants.
Unique: Assistants are cloneable objects — configuration can be copied to create new assistants without manual setup. Enables template-based assistant creation and multi-tenant provisioning patterns.
vs alternatives: Simpler than manually creating assistants with identical configuration, but less flexible than parameterized templates; no built-in versioning or rollback compared to infrastructure-as-code approaches
Files uploaded to assistants are stored in OpenAI's managed file storage and associated with assistants or threads. Files can be deleted explicitly via API, and OpenAI automatically cleans up files after 30 days of inactivity. File storage is charged per file per assistant; deleting unused files reduces costs. Files can be reused across multiple assistants and threads, but each association incurs a separate storage charge.
Unique: Files are managed server-side with automatic cleanup after 30 days — no manual file system management required. Files are associated with assistants and charged per association, enabling cost tracking at the file level.
vs alternatives: Simpler than managing files in external storage (S3, GCS), but less flexible and more expensive for high-volume file usage; automatic cleanup reduces manual maintenance but limits retention control
The File Search tool indexes uploaded files (PDFs, text, code) using OpenAI's embedding model and enables assistants to retrieve relevant passages via semantic search. Files are chunked, embedded, and stored in a managed vector index. When an assistant queries the index, it retrieves the most relevant chunks based on cosine similarity, then includes them in the prompt context. This enables RAG-style retrieval without managing embeddings or vector databases.
Unique: Fully managed vector indexing and retrieval without exposing embedding or vector database layers — files are indexed automatically on upload, and search is invoked implicitly when assistants reference file_search tool. Abstracts away Pinecone/Weaviate setup but sacrifices control over chunking and embedding strategies.
vs alternatives: Faster to implement than building custom RAG with LangChain + Pinecone, but less flexible; no control over chunk size, embedding model, or retrieval parameters compared to self-managed vector databases
Assistants can invoke multiple tools (Code Interpreter, File Search, custom functions) in parallel or sequence based on task requirements. Tool calls are defined via JSON schema (OpenAI function calling format), and the assistant decides which tools to invoke and in what order. Results from tool calls are fed back into the assistant's context, enabling iterative refinement. Supports both parallel execution (multiple tools called simultaneously) and sequential chaining (tool output feeds into next tool's input).
Unique: Tool invocation is driven by the LLM's reasoning — the assistant decides which tools to call, in what order, and with what parameters based on task context. Supports both parallel and sequential execution patterns. Differs from static tool pipelines (e.g., Zapier) where execution order is pre-defined.
vs alternatives: More flexible than hardcoded tool chains, but less predictable than explicit DAGs; requires careful prompt engineering to ensure correct tool selection vs. frameworks like LangChain where tool routing can be more explicit
Assistants can receive file attachments (PDFs, images, code, data files) within messages, which are automatically indexed and made available for retrieval or analysis. Files are stored in OpenAI's managed file storage and can be referenced by subsequent messages in the thread. The assistant can analyze file content via Code Interpreter, search file content via File Search, or reference files in function calls. Files persist within a thread and are accessible across multiple turns.
Unique: Files are first-class message attachments with automatic indexing and managed storage — no separate file management API required. Files persist in thread context and are automatically made available to all tools (Code Interpreter, File Search, function calls) without explicit routing.
vs alternatives: Simpler than managing files separately and passing file paths to tools; automatic indexing reduces setup vs. manual chunking and embedding, but less control over file processing compared to custom pipelines
+5 more capabilities