1 Support questions or comments

• 
  4 weeks ago
  Tony42 Purchased

  what's the difference betwen this one and CacheFlow (https://www.codester.com/items/63905/cacheflow-ai-ai-api-cost-optimizer)?
• View 1 more reply
• 
  4 weeks ago
  eneseserkan Author

  Hi Tony42,
  
  Good question — both tackle the same problem (40-70% AI cost savings via cache +
  smart
  routing + prompt compression), but they're built for different use cases.
  
  TokenFlow ($44) is a full self-hosted SaaS platform: Next.js 14 web app with
  NextAuth
  user system, Stripe billing, Free/Pro/Enterprise plan tiers, admin + user
  dashboards,
  API key management. Built so you can RESELL AI cost optimization as a managed
  service,
  or run it as a multi-user gateway for your team.
  
  CacheFlow ($94) is a local CLI proxy — single-user, runs entirely on your own
  machine
  (localhost:4747), no web app to deploy, no auth, no cloud. MIT licensed.
  Includes
  auto-routing to free providers (Groq, Cerebras, OpenRouter free tier) and local
  Ollama
  integration for 100% private workflows.
  
  Quick rule:
  • Want to resell this, or run a team/multi-tenant gateway → TokenFlow
  • Just want cheaper AI bills on your own projects, 2-minute CLI install, fully
  local
  and private → CacheFlow
  
  The price difference isn't about feature count (TokenFlow actually has more code
  — the
  whole SaaS layer). It's about what you're paying for: TokenFlow = reseller
  platform,
  CacheFlow = simplicity + local-first + MIT license.
  
  What's your use case? Happy to point you to the right one.
• 
  4 weeks ago
  Tony42 Purchased

  Thanks for the very detailed explanation. Now I get the better unbderstanding. My only remianing question is - do those two products share the same core LLM gateway engine (smart routing, cache + prompt comopression, etc.?)
• 
  4 weeks ago
  eneseserkan Author

  Hi Tony42,
  
  Honest answer: no, separate codebases. They implement the same three
  techniques (semantic caching, smart routing, prompt compression) but
  independently — TokenFlow inside a Next.js API route (tied to its
  Prisma/NextAuth/Stripe layer), CacheFlow as a standalone Node CLI
  proxy with its own SQLite cache.
  
  Same ~40-70% savings ceiling (that's the realistic cap for these
  techniques combined), different plumbing because the deployment models
  are different: TokenFlow carries multi-tenant auth/billing; CacheFlow
  stays zero-config for a single developer. Sharing one engine would
  just force each product to carry the other's overhead.
  
  Which use case are you solving for?
• 
  4 weeks ago
  Tony42 Purchased

  Thanks for the deep dive. Your approach makes a lot of sense. I am leaning towards TokenFlow at the moment but will bookmark CacheFlow as well. BTW you products look more sophisticated than most of the AI products on this platform. Good luck with your sales!