# openrouter vs typesafe — AI API latency and uptime comparison
Updated September 27, 2026. As of September 27, 2026, openrouter has lower edge latency (time-to-first-byte) than typesafe in 4 of 4 measured region(s). From South America (São Paulo), openrouter responds in 60 ms p50 vs 248 ms.

| Region | openrouter p50 | typesafe p50 | Faster |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Asia (Tokyo) | 56 ms | 148 ms | openrouter |
| Europe (Germany) | 98 ms | 234 ms | openrouter |
| South America (São Paulo) | 60 ms | 248 ms | openrouter |
| US (Central) | 61 ms | 111 ms | openrouter |


## Does openrouter or typesafe have better uptime?

Over the last 24 hours openrouter and typesafe are level on availability at 100% of probes succeeding across 4 region(s). Neither is separated from the other by uptime at this sample size.

| Provider | Probes succeeding | Worst region | there | Samples |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| openrouter | 100% | Asia (Tokyo) | 100% | 1155 |
| typesafe | 100% | Asia (Tokyo) | 100% | 122 |


Observed availability over the last 24 hours, not a contractual SLA. Longer windows: https://llmlatency.dev/best-uptime

Time to first token (TTFT) for both, with the model named: https://llmlatency.dev/time-to-first-token
Source: https://llmlatency.dev/compare/openrouter-vs-typesafe