TrueFoundry AI Gateway vs Orq.ai Router
The question that decides it: Do you need the complete compliance paperwork, or the widest reach and request-tier pricing?
Our verdict
Regulated workloads, especially health data or EU-resident processing: Orq.ai Router, which is the only one of the two that will sign a HIPAA business associate agreement and publishes both EU residency and a zero-data-retention position. Broad model access on request-based pricing with no percentage on inference: TrueFoundry AI Gateway.
Why
These two rarely appear on the same shortlist and they should. Both are proprietary, both can run as a managed service or inside your own cloud, and both support air-gapped installation — a combination only four products here offer at all. If your requirement is a vendor-supported gateway that can run somewhere with no internet route, this is the pair.
Orq.ai Router has the more complete compliance record of the two, and it is not close. It publishes a SOC 2 report, will sign a HIPAA business associate agreement, offers a GDPR data processing agreement and EU data residency, and states a zero-data-retention position. TrueFoundry publishes a SOC 2 report and a GDPR agreement but no HIPAA BAA, does not publish an EU residency position, and does not publish a zero-data-retention position at all. For anything touching protected health information that difference decides the pair on its own.
TrueFoundry answers the reach and pricing questions better. It states 1,000 models across 27 upstream providers against Orq.ai's 500, and it sells on request tiers rather than taking a percentage — there is no token markup and no credit fee recorded for it. Orq.ai charges 4.5% on credit purchases with no token markup, so the fee is levied on money you load rather than on each call. Which is cheaper depends entirely on volume: a percentage on top-ups is the better shape for exploratory use, a request tier for steady high traffic.
Neither is only a gateway, and that is worth naming. Orq.ai bundles evaluation, observability and governance tooling around the router, and TrueFoundry is sold as a platform with request tiers and MCP tool calls included. You are adopting a platform in both cases, so weigh the parts you will not use. Both support bringing your own upstream provider keys, both make logging configurable with a documented off switch, and TrueFoundry states 90-day retention where Orq.ai publishes no retention figure.
Which one, concretely
Choose TrueFoundry AI Gateway if
- You want the widest published reach — 1,000 models across 27 upstream providers
- You prefer request-tier pricing to a percentage on credit
- You want a stated retention period rather than an unpublished one
- You need MCP tool calls included in the platform
Choose Orq.ai Router if
- You need a signed HIPAA business associate agreement
- You need EU data residency and a GDPR data processing agreement
- You need a published zero-data-retention position
- You want evaluation and governance tooling bundled with the router
What catches people out
- TrueFoundry publishes no HIPAA business associate agreement and no EU residency position — both are recorded as unpublished, not as a no.
- TrueFoundry publishes no zero-data-retention position and does not state whether it trains on customer data.
- Orq.ai's 4.5% is charged on credit purchases, not on tokens, so it is a percentage of what you load rather than what you spend.
- Orq.ai publishes no retention figure, so the 30-day figure in its free tier description is not a general commitment.
- Both are proprietary with no source available, so an air-gapped install still leaves you dependent on a vendor for fixes.
- Both bundle a wider platform around the gateway; price and evaluate the parts you will actually use.
Side by side
Interpret these fields: How much does an LLM gateway lock you in? · LLM gateway compliance: SOC 2, HIPAA and evidence · How LLM gateway failover actually works
3 of 18 fields differ, marked with a dot. Every figure links to the vendor page it came from. Blank values read Not published rather than No — silence from a vendor is not a negative answer.
| Field | TrueFoundry AI Gateway | Orq.ai Router |
|---|---|---|
| Ease of leaving Derived score, higher is easier | 100/100 Easy to leave | 84/100 Some work to leave |
| What kind of product Category | Cloud platform | Managed gateway |
| Who runs it Deployment model | Managed or self-host | Managed or self-host |
| Licence Licence | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Models available Models available | ~1,000 | ~500 |
| Model providers reachable Upstream providers | 27 | Not published |
| Markup on model prices Token markup | Not published | None |
| Fee to add funds Credit purchase fee | Not published | 4.5% |
| Runs fully disconnected Air-gapped deployment | Yes | Yes |
| SOC 2 audited SOC 2 audited | Yes | Yes |
| Will sign a HIPAA agreement HIPAA BAA | Not published | Yes |
| GDPR commitments GDPR commitments | Yes | Yes |
| Can keep data in the EU EU data residency | Not published | Yes |
| Does not retain your data Zero data retention | Not published | Yes |
| What gets logged Logged content | Your choice | Your choice |
| You can turn logging off Body-logging opt-out | Yes | Yes |
| How long they keep it Default content retention (days) | 90 days | Not published |
| Can use your own provider accounts BYOK supported | Yes | Yes |
| Could they train on your prompts Training on customer data | Not published — silence, not a no | No |
for TrueFoundry AI Gateway and for Orq.ai Router. Want more fields, or a third option in the mix? Open these two in the full comparison tool.
Common questions
Which of these can be deployed air-gapped?
Both. TrueFoundry AI Gateway and Orq.ai Router each record air-gapped installation as supported, and both can run as a managed service or inside your own cloud. They are two of only four products in this catalog that support air-gapped installation, which makes this pair unusually relevant for isolated environments.
Will either sign a HIPAA business associate agreement?
Orq.ai Router will; TrueFoundry AI Gateway does not publish one. That is recorded as unpublished rather than as a refusal, so it is worth asking directly. But as sold and documented today, Orq.ai is the only one of the two you can take into a workload involving protected health information.
How do their prices compare?
They use different mechanisms, so there is no single answer. Orq.ai charges 4.5% on credit purchases and no token markup. TrueFoundry records neither a markup nor a credit fee and sells request tiers instead. A percentage on top-ups suits exploratory volume; a request tier suits steady, predictable traffic.