Comparisons

Detailed comparisons of codexkey with the usual alternatives. Treat them as a way to pick a path to the Claude API, not as advertising.

• Claude vs OpenAI API

  /docs/comparisons/openai

  For long-context coding, agentic tool use and precise instruction following, Claude through codexkey is usually the better fit. In fast multimodal work (voice, image generation) GPT-4o still leads. Flagship prices per 1M tokens are comparable, and codexkey has payment options for Russia and the CIS that OpenAI lacks.

• Self-hosted or managed gateway

  /docs/comparisons/self-hosted

  In a gateway of your own, per-key limits, model lists and IP filters are whatever you build. A codexkey key has a name, a Premium or Cheap channel, a Premium fallback for Cheap, an expiry date and usage statistics; RPM/TPM, concurrency, budgets, model lists, IP filters and IDE restrictions are not configurable through the key API.

• Gateway or direct Anthropic API

  /docs/comparisons/direct-anthropic

  Direct api.anthropic.com is the right choice if you have a US or EU corporate card, no payment friction and no need for an intermediary. codexkey wins where an Anthropic account cannot be opened (payments from Russia and the CIS), where you want pay-as-you-go with no minimums, sub-organizations with separate budgets, or an OpenAI-compatible interface for tools that do not understand the Anthropic format.

• Claude vs GigaChat and YandexGPT

  /docs/comparisons/domestic-llm

  Domestic models are simpler legally and cheaper on simple tasks. Claude is stronger at code, long context and agentic scenarios. Choose by the task, not by patriotism.

• Claude API gateways in Russia

  /docs/comparisons/russian-gateways

  We are cheaper per token and support both API formats at once. Competitors are stronger with legal entities and in catalog breadth. The figures below were checked by hand.