---
receipt: "Nine router launches since July: what each claims to save, what score it publishes for the router itself, who graded it, and whether it sits on the shared board"
date: 2026-11-05
---

# Receipt: the router scorecard

## Question

For each model router aimed at coding or agent work that launched or relaunched since July 2026: what does it say it saves, what quality score does it publish for the router itself (not the models under it), who measured it, and is it on the one shared router scoreboard (OpenRouter's)?

## Inputs and results

All pages read 2026-11-05. V = read on the primary page. Chart readings are marked "about."

| Router | Launched | Says it saves | Router's own score | Graded by | Cost and score both published? | On OpenRouter's board? | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Baseten Router | Nov 4 | 72% vs always Opus 5.5 (V) | 69.6% vs Opus 5.5's 70.4%; about $0.38 vs $1.34 per task; DeepSWE 1.1, SWE Atlas QnA, Terminal-Bench 2.1, averaged over 4 Opus and 8 GLM runs per task (V, chart); random-routing check: "we simulate 10,000 random routers" per split, significant if above 95% of them at the same cost (V) | Baseten | Yes | No | Public preview on Baseten Grid |
| Applied Compute Shift-1 | Oct 21 | 55% on Codex, 24% on Claude Code, production A/B (V) | 75.9% vs always-Astra 76.5%, own rubric eval, 117 tasks; $3.38 vs $7.23 per turn (V, chart data) | Applied Compute | Yes | No | Live |
| Arena Max (agentic version) | Oct 12 | "37% cost savings compared to top models" (V, Arena blog index) | "frontier performance in Agent Arena" (V); we didn't open the full post | Arena, on its own leaderboard | Not checked | No | Live in Arena |
| Fireworks FireRouter (now Nexus Auto) | Sep 28 | 57% vs Opus alone (V, archived) | 78.7% vs Opus's 80.2% of graded turns, internal A/B (V, archived) | Fireworks | Yes | No | Renamed; launch post now redirects to the blog index |
| Together Link | Oct 5 | "over 50%" (V) | None published | n/a | No | No | Beta |
| Jev Router (TypeSafe) | Sep 25 | None found | 237 vs 130 of 423 tasks against OpenRouter's previous Auto Router (V) | OpenRouter, which now runs its Auto Router on Jev | No cost figure | Yes, as Auto | Live |
| Ramp Router | Aug 19 | 40% (V) | None. router.com scores 26 models; no Router row (V) | n/a | No | No | Live |
| Cloudflare Auto Router | Sep 30 | Up to 30% (V) | 86.6% vs Opus 5.5's 96.6%, internal knowledge-work test, not coding; $0.0084 vs $0.021 per success (V) | Cloudflare | Yes | No | Public beta |
| Cursor Router | Jul 22 | ~60% (V) | None offline; user-satisfaction A/B (V) | Cursor | No | No | Live, Teams and Enterprise |

Counts: 9 launches. 7 back their claims with a test they chose or ran themselves (Baseten, Applied Compute, Arena, Fireworks, Cloudflare, Cursor's satisfaction A/B, and Jev, graded by its host OpenRouter). 2 publish nothing for the router (Together, Ramp). 4 publish both cost and score for the router (Baseten, Applied Compute, Fireworks, Cloudflare). 1 of 9 is on OpenRouter's board (Jev, as Auto). Only Baseten used common public benchmarks (DeepSWE 1.1, SWE Atlas QnA, Terminal-Bench 2.1), the same family OpenRouter's board and Artificial Analysis's coding index use.

Not in the nine because they aren't new launches or aren't coding-specific: Pareto (ours, on OpenRouter's board), NVIDIA Switchyard (on the board; Ramp's site says it uses Switchyard), Sakana's Fugu (on the board), GitHub Copilot's auto model selection, Not Diamond, Martian.

## Who tested whom

Each launch that compared itself to rivals ran the rivals itself:

- Baseten's chart includes Applied Compute Shift-1 (about 69.4% at $1.23), OpenRouter Auto High (about 68.6% at $1.23), FireRouter Level 4 High (about 68.3% at $1.28), OpenRouter Auto Medium (about 67.0% at $0.62), Together Link Auto High (about 64.4% at $1.83), OpenRouter Auto Low (about 60.2% at $0.27), and "OpenRouter Pareto High" (about 69.7% at $1.34). Always GLM 5.3 Flash: 5.9 points below Opus, 87% cheaper. Readings off the published chart, not numbers in the text.
- "OpenRouter Pareto High" is OpenRouter's Pareto Code router (`openrouter/pareto-code`), which picks a coding model by score tier. It is not UnbiasedAI's Pareto (`unbiased/pareto-26.10`), which Baseten didn't test.
- Applied Compute's chart includes OpenRouter Jev ($2.62, 73.9%) and OpenRouter Auto ($1.29, 74.0%), and always-Sol ($1.29, 74.0%). It says it couldn't test FireRouter "due to lack of ZDR."
- Baseten's reference [3] for FireRouter now redirects to Fireworks' blog index; the docs say "The `firerouter` model ID no longer works."

## Math

Baseten's router score: 70.4 − 0.8 = 69.6%. Cost: 1.34 × (1 − 0.72) = $0.375 per task.

"Stretch it 3x" (subtitle): at 72% cheaper per task, a budget buys 1 ÷ 0.28 = 3.6x as many tasks, on Baseten's test and mix. On the 0.8-point loss, cost per success goes from 1.34 ÷ 0.704 = $1.90 to 0.375 ÷ 0.696 = $0.54, so 3.5x as many finished tasks per dollar. We say "3x" and round down.

## Limitations

- Every score in the table is the vendor's own (or, for Jev, its host's). We didn't rerun any of them.
- Chart readings for Baseten's rivals are approximate; Baseten didn't print them.
- "Launched since July" is our cut. Cursor's July 22 launch is the oldest. Arena Max is for agent tasks generally, not coding only; its date comes from Arena's blog index (https://arena.ai/blog/march-2026-arena-updates/), read 2026-11-05.
- We may have missed a router. Send it to feedback@unbiased.ai and we'll add it with a dated note.