Honest comparison

aiusage vs Helicone

Helicone logs your LLM calls and offers caching. aiusage routes your Claude calls through a proxy that *actually* drops your bill 60-90%. Overlap: caching. Difference: we optimize cost; they optimize visibility.

What each is for

Helicone

dashboards, request-level tracing, user-level attribution.

aiusage

Drop-in proxy for Claude (and GPT, Grok). One env var, cache + route + 60-90% cheaper. Your keys stay yours. Built-in features (Flywheel, Test Links, QA on Server, Agent) all bill from one runs balance.

The honest tradeoff

Helicone strength: dashboards, request-level tracing, user-level attribution.

Helicone weakness (for our use case): doesn't materially cut your Anthropic bill — it watches it.

aiusage strength: material bill-cutting, instant setup, per-run pricing.

aiusage weakness: we do not try to be an LLM ops platform — if you need the full Helicone feature set, we will never compete on that.

Pricing side-by-side

ToolPriceWhat you actually pay
Helicone$0-$499/mo + your full Anthropic billHelicone tier + your full Anthropic bill on top
aiusagepay-per-run, average 60-90% off your Anthropic billOne runs balance. No seat fees. No subscription.

Who should pick which

Pick Helicone if

you need SRE-grade LLM observability across 10+ models.

Pick aiusage if

you want your Claude bill to be 10x smaller next month.

Can you use both?

Yes. Point Helicone at aiusage base URL instead of api.anthropic.com. You get Helicone observability/ops layer AND aiusage caching + cost optimization. Takes one env var change.

ANTHROPIC_BASE_URL=https://aiusage.ai
ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=<your existing key>

Stop paying full price for Claude.

$20 free, no card. Works alongside Helicone if that is your jam.

Start free ->

All features - Pricing - Use cases