provider pricing: measure our Regolo usage — $4.38/month, ~1.1% of inference spend
Answered the subscription question with our own SpendLogs rather than guessing: 452 requests, $4.38, essentially all in the last 30 days, against $426 lifetime gateway spend. A plan must beat ~$4.38/month; Regolo prices are not published. Their 30-day trial (1M tokens/day) would cover our ~120k/day. Also puts the 2026-11-01 change in money terms: ~$1/month, so accuracy rather than urgency.
This commit is contained in:
1 parent
d7e057386d
commit
445d8b0c3e
1 file changed
+35
@@ -62,3 +62,38 @@ should be fixed in the same pass (x 1.16 -> $0.0000000174 per pixel).
|
|||||||
Keep a dated section per notice. The next change should be a diff against this file rather than a
|
Keep a dated section per notice. The next change should be a diff against this file rather than a
|
||||||
re-derivation — the email link is a login wall, so the numbers only reach us when the operator
|
re-derivation — the email link is a login wall, so the numbers only reach us when the operator
|
||||||
forwards them.
|
forwards them.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Our actual Regolo usage (measured 2026-10-31, from LiteLLM SpendLogs)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Source: `"LiteLLM_SpendLogs"` in the gateway's Postgres, reached with python + `psycopg` inside the
|
||||||
|
gateway container (there is no `psql` there). Models were first used 2026-10-16.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
| model | requests | spend | window |
|
||||||
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||
|
| regolo/qwen3.5-122b | 195 | $2.61 | 2026-10-16 → 10-31 |
|
||||||
|
| regolo/qwen-image | 94 | $0.96 | 2026-10-16 → 10-31 |
|
||||||
|
| regolo/apertus-70b | 157 | $0.82 | 2026-10-16 → 10-31 |
|
||||||
|
| **all Regolo** | **452** | **$4.38** | last 30 days; ~all of it |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Context: total gateway spend is **$426.34** lifetime (104,947 requests, since 2026-09-04), and
|
||||||
|
**~$393 in the last 30 days** — greenpt/glm $231.42, deepseek $146.14, gpt-oss $10.32,
|
||||||
|
Regolo **$4.38**, other $0.79. So **Regolo is ~1.1% of inference spend, about $4.38/month.**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Should we take a subscription?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Almost certainly not at current usage.** A plan has to beat ~$4.38/month to be worth it, and
|
||||||
|
Regolo's plan prices are **not published** — the pricing page has a SUBSCRIPTIONS section with no
|
||||||
|
figures, which is why the announcement email links into their account portal. Worth one short
|
||||||
|
question to them via "Talk to an engineer", not a project.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
One thing that is public and useful: their **30-day free trial** grants **1M tokens/day** across
|
||||||
|
"All Core Models". Our entire Regolo usage is roughly **120k tokens/day** (≈3.6M/month), i.e. well
|
||||||
|
inside that, so the trial — and likely a low tier — would cover everything we currently do.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## The 2026-11-01 change, in money terms
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
At these volumes the mispricing is small: apertus's input roughly 2.5x-ing on a model that has cost
|
||||||
|
**$0.82 lifetime** is about **$1/month** of exposure, and qwen's cut moves ~$0.6/month in members'
|
||||||
|
favour. So this is **billing accuracy, not urgency** — but accuracy still matters, because the same
|
||||||
|
numbers feed the cost headers members can now read.
|
||||||
Reference in new issue
Block a user