From 844ace12833cc381995e034d07e000f372a2bfc6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alexsander Hamir <alexsanderhamirgomesbaptista@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2025 10:37:17 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] add: comparison with portkey (#16145)

---
 docs/my-website/docs/benchmarks_comparison.md | 93 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 93 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 docs/my-website/docs/benchmarks_comparison.md

diff --git a/docs/my-website/docs/benchmarks_comparison.md b/docs/my-website/docs/benchmarks_comparison.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..067a9ba90e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/my-website/docs/benchmarks_comparison.md
@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+# LiteLLM vs Portkey Performance Comparison
+
+**Test Configuration**:
+
+- 4 CPUs, 8 GB RAM per instance
+- Load testing with 1k concurrent users, 500 ramp up
+
+---
+
+## Single Instance Results
+
+### Portkey (Single Instance no DB)
+
+| Metric              | Value       |
+| ------------------- | ----------- |
+| **Total Requests**  | 95,374      |
+| **Failed Requests** | 24 (0.025%) |
+| **Median Latency**  | 170ms       |
+| **95th Percentile** | 6,400ms     |
+| **99th Percentile** | 9,500ms     |
+| **Average Latency** | 1,076ms     |
+| **Current RPS**     | 526.6       |
+
+### LiteLLM (Single Instance with DB)
+
+| Metric               | Value                     |
+| -------------------- | ------------------------- |
+| **Total Requests**   | 133,364                   |
+| **Failed Requests**  | 3 (0.002%)                |
+| **Median Latency**   | 490ms                     |
+| **95th Percentile**  | 2,700ms                   |
+| **99th Percentile**  | 3,300ms                   |
+| **Average Latency**  | 1,103ms                   |
+| **Current RPS**      | 588.5                     |
+| **LiteLLM Overhead** | 40ms (median), 59ms (p95) |
+
+---
+
+## Multi-Instance Results (4x Instances)
+
+### Portkey (no DB)
+
+| Metric              | Value   |
+| ------------------- | ------- |
+| **Total Requests**  | 293,796 |
+| **Failed Requests** | 0       |
+| **Median Latency**  | 100ms   |
+| **95th Percentile** | 230ms   |
+| **99th Percentile** | 500ms   |
+| **Average Latency** | 123ms   |
+| **Current RPS**     | 1,170.9 |
+
+### LiteLLM (with DB)
+
+| Metric              | Value   |
+| ------------------- | ------- |
+| **Total Requests**  | 312,405 |
+| **Failed Requests** | 0       |
+| **Median Latency**  | 120ms   |
+| **95th Percentile** | 210ms   |
+| **99th Percentile** | 590ms   |
+| **Average Latency** | 135ms   |
+| **Current RPS**     | 1,132.1 |
+
+---
+
+## Key Takeaways
+
+**Single Instance**:
+
+- LiteLLM: 88% fewer failures (3 vs 24)
+- LiteLLM: 58% better p95 latency (2,700ms vs 6,400ms)
+- LiteLLM: 65% better p99 latency (3,300ms vs 9,500ms)
+
+**Multi-Instance (4x)**: Both systems perform comparably with zero failures and similar RPS (~1,150 RPS).
+
+## Technical Observations
+
+**Portkey**
+
+* **Memory:** Low memory footprint.
+* **CPU Utilization:** Does not fully utilize available CPUs, reaching only ~40% utilization.
+* **Stability:** Experienced 3 outages during testing due to I/O timeout connection issues.
+* **Performance:** Struggled with connection handling and delivered significantly poorer single-instance performance compared to LiteLLM.
+* **Performance Oscillation:** Exhibits fewer latency spikes, resulting in more stable performance from the beginning.
+
+**LiteLLM**
+
+* **Memory:** High memory usage during both initialization and per-request processing.
+* **CPU Utilization:** Fully utilizes available CPU resources.
+* **Stability:** Experienced 1 outage due to out-of-memory (OOM) errors.
+* **Performance:** Demonstrates robust connection handling on single instances, though memory usage remains high.
+* **Performance Oscillation:** Achieves low latency the longer it runs, with a few initial spikes.
\ No newline at end of file