vs
Cerebras vs Particle.AI
Particle.AI sells cheap Flash-class models with 1M context through Vercel. Cerebras sells top speed on GPT-OSS 120B. Price and context against speed.
By The Subconscious Team · Updated
Cerebras vs Particle.AI: key differences
Particle.AI is an early startup whose product shows up mainly on Vercel AI Gateway. It serves DeepSeek V4.1 Flash at $0.25 in and $1 out at about 157 tokens per second, GLM 5.3 Flash at $0.10 in and $0.40 out, and DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 at $0.14 in and $0.28 out, all with 1M context and cache reads at $0.03. Cerebras serves GPT-OSS 120B near 3,000 tokens per second at $0.35 in and $0.75 out on a wafer-scale chip. Particle wins on price and context. Cerebras wins on speed by a wide margin.
Each is reachable through Vercel, so a team can route between them without a new contract. Particle fits high-volume calls where cost matters more than latency, and its listing shows 3.5 seconds of latency on DeepSeek V4.1 Flash. Cerebras fits voice and streaming, where that kind of delay would break the experience. Particle has little public track record. Cerebras trades on Nasdaq and serves OpenAI.
What Cerebras and Particle.AI do
Cerebras
Cerebras builds a single chip the size of a silicon wafer, and its inference cloud is the fastest public host on the models it serves. Its developer table lists GPT-OSS 120B near 3,000 tokens per second, about six times Groq on the same weights, at $0.35 in and $0.75 out per million. The public shared catalog is thin, just GPT-OSS 120B and Gemma 4 31B as of August 2026. More model families live on dedicated endpoints and through partners like OpenRouter, Hugging Face, Vercel and AWS Marketplace.
Example models: GPT-OSS 120B, Gemma 4 31B
Full Cerebras profile
Particle.AI
Particle AI is an early San Francisco infrastructure startup with a mission to make intelligence as cheap and abundant as electricity. The team works on post-training, inference optimization and distributed systems, all aimed at pushing down cost per unit of intelligence. It is still hiring its founding team and works fully in person. Public detail about funding and founders is thin as of this writing.
Example models: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, GLM 5.3 Flash
Full Particle.AI profileShould you choose Cerebras or Particle.AI?
Cerebras
Choose Cerebras for
- Voice and streaming UIs where latency is visible
- Fast long outputs on GPT-OSS 120B
- Production traffic that needs an established vendor
Particle.AI
Choose Particle.AI for
- Cheap high-volume calls on DeepSeek and GLM Flash models
- 1M context at Flash-class prices
- A low-cost fallback route in Vercel AI Gateway
Cerebras vs Particle.AI at a glance
| Attribute | Cerebras |  Particle.AI |
|---|---|---|
| Model access | Open weights | Open weights |
| Flagship models | GPT-OSS 120B, Gemma 4 31B | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, GLM 5.3 Flash |
| Speed | ~3,000 tok/s on GPT-OSS 120B | ~157 tok/s on DeepSeek V4.1 Flash |
| Price | $0.35 in, $0.75 out (GPT-OSS 120B) | $0.10 in, $0.40 out (GLM 5.3 Flash) |
| Customization | Unknown | Unknown |
| Deployment | Shared API, dedicated, partners | Via Vercel AI Gateway |
| Long context | Unknown | 1M |
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between Cerebras and Particle.AI?
Particle.AI sells cheap Flash-class models with 1M context through Vercel. Cerebras sells top speed on GPT-OSS 120B. Price and context against speed.
When should I choose Cerebras over Particle.AI?
Voice and streaming UIs where latency is visible; Fast long outputs on GPT-OSS 120B; Production traffic that needs an established vendor.
When should I choose Particle.AI over Cerebras?
Cheap high-volume calls on DeepSeek and GLM Flash models; 1M context at Flash-class prices; A low-cost fallback route in Vercel AI Gateway.
Is Cerebras or Particle.AI cheaper?
Cerebras: $0.35 in, $0.75 out (GPT-OSS 120B). Particle.AI: $0.10 in, $0.40 out (GLM 5.3 Flash). The cheaper choice depends on the model and workload.
Related comparisons
Running long-horizon agents?
If your agents run past 200K tokens, compare both against Subconscious. Our inference stack treats a long-horizon trace as the primary workload, so speed, cost, and accuracy hold up deep into the trace.