Quick answer
Start from the workflow, not from a generic provider list. If you are comparing 302.AI, OpenRouter or another GPT/Codex relay, first open the public docs, pricing page, model list, privacy policy and support path before adding balance.
Public Source Checks
AI API Gateway Candidate Checks
Start from official APIs as the safety baseline, then compare GPT/Codex, Claude Code friendly relays, global aggregators, Chinese model platforms and enterprise gateways as verification candidates. Open docs and pricing pages, spot missing fields and request source updates before routing code or adding balance.
What to verify before choosing
- Can you open the official site, API docs, pricing page and privacy policy?
- Does the provider disclose which model families are available?
- Is the provider useful for your tool: Claude Code, Codex CLI, Cursor, Cline or SDK work?
- Are missing fields and source update paths visible before you add balance or route code through it?
Official API Baseline
Start here for production, sensitive code and compliance-heavy workflows. Third-party relays should be compared against these official routes, not treated as the default.
OpenAI
GPT, Codex-style workflows, OpenAI SDK and Responses API compatibility baseline.
Anthropic
Claude Code, Claude API and Anthropic-compatible behavior baseline.
Google AI Studio
Gemini API, multimodal model access and Google-native developer workflows.
DeepSeek
DeepSeek API, low-cost reasoning/code models and official OpenAI-compatible reference.
Gateway and Relay Candidates
After checking the official API baseline, compare provider type, suitable workflow, tool compatibility, public source links, missing fields and next actions in one compact table.
| Entry | Provider | Type | Fit | Tool compatibility | Public links | Notes | Source / action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Check 1 | OpenRouter | Global aggregator | Benchmarking model availability, pricing, and a global API gateway baseline. | Codex CLI Cursor Cline | Not ideal for native Claude Code | ||
| Check 2 | SiliconFlow | China model platform | Low-cost DeepSeek, Qwen, embedding, image, and open model workloads. | Codex CLI Cursor Cline | Not ideal for native Claude Code | ||
| Check 3 | 302.AI | Global aggregator | Users who want both AI tools and API access under one account, while still checking official docs, pricing and privacy links before production use. | Codex CLI Cursor Cline | Not ideal for native Claude Code | ||
| Check 4 | DMXAPI | Enterprise gateway | Companies that need private deployment, auditability, and a managed API control layer. | Codex CLI Cursor Cline | Docs need checkingPricing needs checkingNot ideal for native Claude Code | ||
| Check 5 | MoleAPI | Claude Code friendly | Developers who want one endpoint for Claude Code, Cursor, Codex CLI, and common OpenAI SDK workflows. | Claude Code Codex CLI Cursor Cline | Run low-balance test first | ||
| Check 6 | API易 | Claude Code friendly | Teams that care about documentation, invoices, and visible model/pricing references. | Claude Code Codex CLI Cursor Cline | Run low-balance test first | ||
| Check 7 | 灵芽 API | Claude Code friendly | Users who primarily need copyable setup steps for AI coding terminals and editors. | Claude Code Codex CLI Cursor Cline | Run low-balance test first | ||
| Check 8 | 柏拉图 AI | Claude Code friendly | Users comparing Chinese relay services with coding-tool setup support. | Claude Code Codex CLI Cursor Cline | Pricing needs checking |
Use these checks this way
- Start with source links: official site, docs and pricing should be easy to verify.
- Use the public source checker when a provider page is missing docs, pricing, models, privacy, terms, status or support fields.
- Use official API routes as the baseline before treating any relay or gateway as a candidate.
- Treat missing docs, missing pricing and unclear compatibility as filtering signals.
- Open the provider detail page to see source fields and risk notes before deciding what to verify next.