Requesty review

Pros and cons

Who it suits

• Teams that already hold provider keys and want routing without a second billing relationship, since keys they bring carry nothing extra.
• Small teams prototyping on a free tier with a daily request allowance, then paying model cost plus markup once traffic becomes continuous.
• Developers whose stack already speaks an OpenAI-compatible API, for whom the move is a base URL change.

Who should look elsewhere

• Self-hosting teams: LiteLLM is free to run under its own open-source licence, so a gateway fee is avoidable when you run the gateway yourself.
• Teams wanting a fixed monthly budget: Salad lists Flat monthly subscription or pay per token, which is easier to forecast than a markup that scales with token volume.

Integrations and platforms

Requesty exposes an OpenAI-compatible API, so an application already written against OpenAI endpoints can send its traffic to Requesty by changing the base URL and keeping the request shape it uses today. That removes the usual opening job on a gateway project, which is rebuilding clients for each vendor. Bring your own key is supported, so a team can start with provider credentials it already holds instead of onboarding every model vendor separately. The two facts together make Requesty a thin layer in front of existing accounts: vendor choice, key storage and endpoint configuration change in the same place, while calling code stays put. Teams managing several vendor relationships gain a common place to change them, and teams with a narrow vendor list gain a cheap route to another.

Plans, egress and billing

Requesty charges a percentage markup on model cost, and nothing on top when you bring your own provider keys. Traffic on Requesty-provided keys therefore costs the provider price plus that uplift on every call, while traffic on keys you supply runs at provider list cost. A free tier is included with a daily request allowance, enough to evaluate routing behaviour before spending anything, and free tiers are common among gateways here (81.7%). Enterprise terms are quoted to fit the deployment rather than listed. Budget with the markup itself in mind, since the published fee model reads as the ongoing rate rather than an introductory offer, and metering follows the token volume your team sends.

Core features

Requesty routes 34 providers behind a shared endpoint, so a team can add or move a vendor by naming a different model in a request instead of maintaining a client per vendor. That catalogue depth is the practical draw for small teams, which rarely want to build integrations for many providers. Bring your own key is supported, so routing choices can sit alongside provider agreements and rate limits a team already holds. An OpenAI-compatible API keeps existing client libraries, retry logic, logging and evaluation harnesses working unchanged. The shape is a routing layer rather than a new stack: credentials, model choice and endpoint configuration live in the same place, and the calling code stays stable as vendors change.

The company behind it

The service is published by Requesty Ltd, the entity to look for on an invoice or in a procurement file. Support runs on email, chat and community, which mixes direct routes with self-service and peer help: live chat and email for questions that need a person, a help centre for common ones, and a community space for the rest. That mix works for a small team that would rather ask in public than sit in a queue, and for a larger team that wants a written record. A phone line is not among the listed channels, so teams that need voice escalation should plan around chat or email.

How Requesty compares

• 

  WaveSpeedAI

  Requesty vs WaveSpeedAI9.2 vs 8.8
• 

  ScalaHosting

  Requesty vs ScalaHosting9.2 vs 8.3
• 

  Contabo

  Requesty vs Contabo9.2 vs 9.2
• 

  Cloudways

  Requesty vs Cloudways9.2 vs 9.2
• 

  PlanetHoster

  Requesty vs PlanetHoster9.2 vs 8.7
• 

  Acronis

  Requesty vs Acronis9.2 vs 9.9
• 

  Aruba

  Requesty vs Aruba9.2 vs 9.3
• 

  Decodo

  Requesty vs Decodo9.2 vs 9.1
• 

  Hostinger

  Requesty vs Hostinger9.2 vs 9.1
• M

  MarsProxies

  Requesty vs MarsProxies9.2 vs 9.0
• 

  hide.me

  Requesty vs hide.me9.2 vs 8.7
• 

  Proton Drive

  Requesty vs Proton Drive9.2 vs 8.3
• 

  Nexos.ai

  Requesty vs Nexos.ai9.2 vs 8.2

Frequently asked questions

Sources

• requesty.ai checked September 26, 2026

  Backs: Bring your own key, OpenAI-compatible API

  “Bring your own keys for any provider while getting Requesty's routing and observability. Or use our unified key.”

• requesty.ai/models checked September 26, 2026

  Backs: Providers routed

  “34 unique providers”

• requesty.ai/pricing checked September 26, 2026

  Backs: Fee model, Free tier

  “No per-seat pricing, no minimum spend. You pay for what your application spends, plus 5%.”

• requesty.ai/privacy checked September 26, 2026

  Backs: Legal entity

  “Requesty Ltd respects your privacy.”

• requesty.ai/support checked September 26, 2026

  Backs: Support channels

  “Need help? Start a chat, email us, or ask the community on Discord.”