This post compares the three most common names developers ask us about: aiusage, Helicone, and Portkey. It's written by the aiusage team, but we'll tell you clearly when one of the others is the better pick.

Short version:

They are genuinely different products. You can use all three together — and some teams do.


aiusage — Savings

Positioning. Your Claude bill, 20× smaller.

Who it's for. Developers and teams already committed to Claude who want the same output for a fraction of the Anthropic invoice. Especially Claude Code users and teams running Anthropic SDK workloads in production.

How it works. You paste your Anthropic key. We encrypt it at rest. You run a one-line installer that points your Claude Code / Anthropic SDK at aiusage.ai instead of api.anthropic.com. Proprietary infrastructure in front of Claude delivers the same output while billing Anthropic roughly 1/20 of what a direct call would cost. You pay us a flat credit-pack fee ($10/15 runs, $25/50, $50/120) instead of paying per-token to Anthropic.

What you get:

What you don't get:

When aiusage wins. You're on Claude. You're staying on Claude. Your bill is bigger than you want. You'd rather have a small predictable pack fee than an unpredictable Anthropic invoice.


Helicone — Observability

Positioning. Every LLM call, logged, searchable, attributable.

Who it's for. Teams past the toy-project stage who need to know which users cost the most, which features are burning money, why latency spiked yesterday afternoon, and whether the prompt change they shipped on Tuesday regressed output quality.

How it works. You route your provider calls through Helicone's proxy (or use their async logger). Every request and response is persisted. Their dashboard gives you cost breakdowns by user ID, feature, model, session — plus latency, error rates, and prompt-level analytics. Evals, caching, and rate limiting are add-ons.

What you get:

What you don't get:

When Helicone wins. You need to know what's happening. Your CFO is asking "why is our AI spend growing faster than our users?" Your product team ships prompt changes weekly and you want to catch regressions. You're a team, not a solo operator, and shared visibility matters.


Portkey — Routing

Positioning. One API, 200+ models, production-grade routing.

Who it's for. Teams that want provider flexibility. You're not committed to a single model family. You want to fall back from GPT-5 to Claude when OpenAI is slow. You want to A/B Gemini against Sonnet on real traffic. You want a guardrail that caps per-user spend.

How it works. Portkey acts as a gateway. You call their API with a virtual model name; they route to whichever underlying provider matches based on your config. Features include load balancing, fallback, retries, caching, rate limiting, and a unified logging view across providers.

What you get:

What you don't get:

When Portkey wins. You're not locked into Claude. You want your stack to fail over cleanly when any one provider wobbles. You want to experiment across providers without rewriting client code. You need per-team or per-key budget caps.


The Actually-Useful Comparison Table

DimensionaiusageHeliconePortkey
Primary jobCut Claude bill 20×Log & analyze every callRoute across models
Cheapens your Claude invoice?Yes, ~20×No (passes through)No (adds margin)
Multi-provider?Claude onlyYesYes (200+)
Observability depthMinimal (by design)DeepModerate
Fallback & routingNoNoYes
Pricing modelCredit packs, $10+Free tier → usageFree tier → usage
BYOKYes (your key, encrypted)YesYes
Prompt loggingOff by designOn by defaultOn by default
Setup time~60 seconds (one-line installer)5–15 min15–30 min
Strongest fitClaude-only, want lower billTeam needs visibilityMulti-model routing

Can You Stack Them?

Yes, and sophisticated teams do. A common pattern:

  1. Portkey handles routing across providers and falls back between GPT / Claude / Gemini at the edge.
  2. aiusage sits in front of the Claude branch of that routing — so when Portkey routes to Claude, it actually hits our savings layer.
  3. Helicone logs everything going through Portkey for observability.

In that stack: Portkey picks which model, aiusage makes the Claude calls cheap, Helicone tells you what happened. Nobody's doing each other's job.

For solo devs and small teams, this is overkill. You probably want one layer, not three.


How To Pick

Answer these three questions honestly:

1. Are you committed to Claude as your primary model?

2. Do you need per-call logs for debugging, cost attribution, or compliance?

3. Is your bill the reason you're reading this post?


A Word On Trust

All three products are BYOK. All three ask you to hand them a provider key or credentials. That's a real trust decision.

Don't hand a production key to anyone who can't answer "where is my key, how is it encrypted, and what happens to my prompts?" in one sentence.


The Honest Plug

This post is by aiusage, so yes, we think we win on the savings axis. We're not trying to win on observability or routing — those aren't our jobs and we'd rather tell you that clearly than watch you switch in and be disappointed.

If you're on Claude and your bill is bigger than you want it to be, aiusage is ~$10 to try. If it's not for you, you'll know in a day and you can uninstall with one env-var change. No lock-in, credits never expire, and we'll stay out of your way.

If Helicone or Portkey is the right tool for your problem, use them. The worst outcome is you pick the wrong category of tool and blame the whole class.

Drop your Claude bill 20×.

Paste your key at aiusage.ai — takes 60 seconds. BYOK, credit packs from $10, credits never expire.

Get started →

Written by the team at aiusage.ai. We do one job: make your existing Claude account ~20× cheaper. Everything else is someone else's fight.