uttapen

Weaver (alpha) vs Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite (batch)

Both sit behind the same key and the same code on uttapen — the only thing that changes is the model string, so you can run each of them against your own workload without touching anything else. On cost, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite (batch) comes out about 1.3× cheaper.

FeatureWeaver (alpha)Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite (batch)
ProviderMancerGoogle
Model idmancer/weavergoogle/gemini-3.1-flash-lite:batch
Context8,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens
Max output6,000 tokens65,536 tokens
Input / 1M tokens116,050 toman36,266 toman
Output / 1M tokens217,594 toman217,594 toman
≈ one 1,000-word request434 toman330 toman
Input cachingNo3,627 toman / 1M
Image inputNoYes
File inputNoYes
Tool callingNoYes
JSON outputYesYes
Reasoning modeNoYes

Which one for what?

Weaver (alpha)

  • High-volume work where cost per call decides
434 toman per 1,000 words · Model page

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite (batch)

  • Multi-step problems, maths, and tracking down a bug
  • Whole documents or a codebase in a single request
  • Reading screenshots, invoices, and scanned forms
  • Agents that call your own APIs and database
  • High-volume work where cost per call decides
330 toman per 1,000 words · Model page

Run both with the same code

Swap the model value between the two ids and send the same request twice; what each answer cost comes back in the X-Uttapen-Cost-Toman header.

curl https://api.uttapen.ir/v1/chat/completions \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer sk-up-…" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "model": "mancer/weaver",
    "messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Introduce yourself in one sentence."}],
    "stream": true
  }'

model = "google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite:batch"

More comparisons: all pairs · model rankings · full catalogue

base_url = https://api.uttapen.ir/v1