NativePort: an Eden AI alternative with native tools for AI agents
Eden AI is a unified AI gateway: one API for 500+ models from 50+ providers, plus a normalized Universal AI endpoint that puts web search, scraping, crawling, OCR, translation and audio behind one shared request and response shape. NativePort builds a focused web-agent stack, model inference plus search, scraping, browser automation and voice, and takes the opposite design choice on the tool side: every one of those APIs keeps the named provider's own native path, parameters and response body, with nothing reshaped in between. This page compares the two on the facts, positions NativePort as an Eden AI alternative built around that provider-native catalog and public benchmark scorecards, not a swap in for Eden AI itself, and shows which API design fits the workflow.
Facts checked against Eden AI's and NativePort's own documentation on July 31, 2026. See sources below.
Who each one is actually for
Neither gateway is a universal answer. Read the side you don't expect before you pick.
Reach for NativePort when
Your agent needs provider-native search, scraping, browser automation or voice, called in the exact shape each provider's own docs describe, on one key and one dollar balance, and you want the choice backed by public benchmark scorecards published with their run dates rather than a features list alone.
Reach for Eden AI when
Your workload spans a wide range of expert-model tasks, OCR, translation, image generation, moderation, alongside chat completions, and you'd rather work against one normalized schema with built-in fallback, bring-your-own-key per provider, and team or governance controls than call each provider's tool natively.
Where they differ
Every row below is sourced from each company's own current documentation, linked at the bottom of this page.
| Eden AI | NativePort | |
|---|---|---|
| Core product | Unified AI gateway: one API for 500+ models from 50+ providers, plus normalized expert-model tasks including web search, scraping, crawling, OCR, translation and audio | Web access gateway: inference plus a separate catalog of provider-native search, scraping, browser automation and voice APIs |
| LLM contract | OpenAI compatible chat completions at /v3/chat/completions, provider/model string, SSE streaming | OpenAI compatible chat completions at /inference/v1, called directly, no dedicated SDK |
| Expert / tool task contract | Normalized /v3/universal-ai endpoint, feature/subfeature/provider[/model] string, one shared input and output shape, plus a provider_params field for provider-specific extras | No normalization layer: each tool API keeps its provider's own documented path, parameters and response body, unchanged |
| Model / provider catalog | 500+ models across 50+ providers, by Eden AI's own count | Four upstream inference integrations, each with its own model catalog: OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI's Grok, and Hugging Face's own multi-provider router |
| Automatic fallback on error | Yes: a fallbacks array on both endpoints retries the next model or provider if the primary one fails | No: a failed request stays failed; retry logic is yours to write |
| Bring your own upstream key | Supported per provider from the dashboard; requests still run through Eden AI's unified API and monitoring | Supported per inference provider; register your own OpenAI, Anthropic, Grok or Hugging Face key to bill that provider directly |
| Web search, scraping & crawling | web/search, web/scraping and async web/crawl_async on Universal AI, currently backed by Firecrawl and Linkup | Native catalog reaching Firecrawl, Tavily, Serper and more directly, each in that provider's own request shape |
| Browser automation sessions | Not documented as a catalogued product; web scraping fetches one URL, with optional JavaScript rendering | Browserbase for a driven, stateful remote browser session; Apify for hosted scraping and automation Actors |
| Markup on provider calls | None, per Eden AI's pricing docs: you pay the provider's own rate | None, per NativePort's docs: usage is metered at the provider's real price |
| Platform / account fee | 5.5% platform fee applied at checkout on a credit purchase | Flat 5.5%, charged only on credit top-ups from $10 to $5,000 |
| Public benchmark scorecards | Not documented as a public, dated scorecard by capability in the pages we checked | Dated leaderboards published per capability, weak scores included |
Provider-native, not normalized
Eden AI's Universal AI endpoint is deliberately the opposite design: one model string pattern, one input and output shape across every provider it fronts, with provider_params as the documented escape hatch for anything outside that schema. NativePort doesn't have a schema to escape from. Every entry below hits that provider's own path with that provider's own documented parameters, and hands back that provider's own response body.
Search
Serper, Tavily, Brave, SerpApi and more, each reached at its own native path with its own parameters.
Scraping & crawling
Firecrawl, Zyte, ScraperAPI, Scrapfly and the rest of the crawling and extraction catalog.
Browser automation
Browserbase for a driven, stateful remote browser session, and Apify for hosted scraping and automation Actors, both reaching further than a single fetch.
Voice & audio
ElevenLabs and Fish Audio for speech generation and transcription, plus voice design through Fish Audio.
Same task, two different shapes
An agent that reasons about a task, searches the live web, then pulls the full page it found makes three ordinary HTTP calls here, each authenticated with the same key, each hitting the named provider's own documented path:
curl https://api.nativeport.ai/inference/v1/chat/completions \ -H "Authorization: Bearer $NATIVEPORT_API_KEY" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d '{"model": "openai/gpt-5.4-mini", "messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "..."}]}' # the model decides a search query is needed, then your code calls Tavily's own shape: curl https://api.nativeport.ai/tavily/search \ -H "Authorization: Bearer $NATIVEPORT_API_KEY" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d '{"query": "..."}' # then pulls the top result with Firecrawl's own shape: curl https://api.nativeport.ai/firecrawl/v2/scrape \ -H "Authorization: Bearer $NATIVEPORT_API_KEY" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d '{"url": "...", "formats": ["markdown"]}' # → each call meters the one balance at the provider's real price
Eden AI covers the same three steps through two endpoints instead of three provider-shaped ones: a chat completion at /v3/chat/completions, then web/search/firecrawl and web/scraping/firecrawl against the single /v3/universal-ai URL, with query and url living inside a shared input object rather than each provider's own field names. Swapping the search provider from Firecrawl to Linkup on Eden AI means changing one segment of the model string; the surrounding request shape stays the same. Swapping providers on NativePort means calling that provider's own endpoint and its own documented body instead.
See the same one-key pattern wired into a framework: Tavily search, Firecrawl scraping and crawling, ElevenLabs text to speech, or the OpenAI Agents SDK.
Scores published with their run dates
Eden AI's own docs return a cost field on every call so you know exactly what a request spent; they don't publish a comparative capability scorecard across the providers behind a given feature, in the pages we checked. NativePort publishes dated capability leaderboards, and provider pages carry a measured scorecard, latency, a quality metric and cost per success, wherever a fixed corpus covers that capability; the same numbers roll up into capability leaderboards you can check before picking a provider, not just after. Where a provider is evaluated but doesn't fit that corpus shape, Browserbase's session-driven actions are the current example, that's marked evaluated but unscored rather than scored around. Weak scores stay published; nothing here is hand-adjusted to flatter the catalog.
Sources
Checked July 31, 2026. Figures on this page change as either company's docs change; if something here looks stale, the source is one click away.
Eden AI, official docs
AI gateway overview · LLMs vs. expert models · Plans & pricing · Fallback · BYOK · Provider parameters · Web search · Web scraping · Web crawl
NativePort, own docs and catalog
Inference API reference · Provider catalog · Leaderboards · Pricing
Asked and answered
Can I point an existing Eden AI integration straight at NativePort?
Not without changes. Eden AI's LLM endpoint and NativePort's inference route both speak an OpenAI compatible chat completions shape, so a basic chat call looks similar, but Eden AI's Universal AI endpoint normalizes web search, scraping, crawling, OCR, translation and audio under one feature/subfeature/provider model string and a shared input/output schema, and NativePort takes a different route: each tool API keeps its provider's own native path, parameters and response shape. Treat NativePort as a separate gateway built around that provider-native design, not a swap in for an Eden AI client.
Does NativePort normalize its web tool APIs into one schema the way Eden AI's Universal AI endpoint does?
No. Eden AI's Universal AI endpoint puts search, scraping, crawling and dozens of other expert-model tasks behind one URL, one model string pattern and one input and output shape, with a provider_params field to pass anything provider-specific outside that schema. NativePort takes the opposite approach: /serper/search, /firecrawl/v2/scrape, /tavily/search and the rest of the catalog each forward the named provider's own documented request and response body untouched. Nothing is reshaped in between, so there's no common schema to learn or a provider_params field to reach past it.
Does Eden AI already have web search, scraping and crawling tools?
Yes. Eden AI's Universal AI endpoint documents web/search, web/scraping and an asynchronous web/crawl_async feature, currently backed by Firecrawl and Linkup, alongside a wide catalog of OCR, image, translation and audio expert models. NativePort's search, scraping and browser automation catalog runs alongside that reality, not instead of it; the distinction is provider-native request shapes and a catalog scoped specifically to web access, not the presence or absence of web tools.
Does NativePort's browser automation work like Eden AI's web scraping?
Not quite. Eden AI's web scraping feature fetches a single URL and returns clean content, with optional JavaScript rendering documented for pages that need it. NativePort catalogs a different kind of tool alongside plain scraping: Browserbase hands back a driven, stateful remote browser session, and Apify runs hosted Actors for scraping and automation, for flows that need to click through steps, hold a login, or act across multiple pages rather than fetch one URL at a time.
Is NativePort cheaper than Eden AI?
We are not claiming that. Both charge the provider's own metered rate on usage with no markup, by each company's own documentation, and both apply a flat 5.5% platform fee, Eden AI at checkout on a credit purchase, NativePort only when credits are added to the balance, from $10 to $5,000. NativePort also seeds a $5 signup credit. Which one is cheaper for a given workload depends on which providers and how much volume you're running through it, not on either company's account level fee.
When should I use Eden AI instead of NativePort?
If your workload spans a wide range of expert-model tasks, OCR, translation, image generation, moderation, alongside chat completions, and you want them all behind one normalized schema, plus built-in ordered fallback across models or providers in the same request, bring your own key per provider, and team or governance controls, Eden AI is the better fit. Come back to NativePort once your agent specifically needs provider-native search, scraping, browser automation or voice APIs on one key and balance, with public, dated benchmark scorecards behind the choice.
Start with the $5
Sign up, get a key, and try the provider-native catalog against your own web-agent workflow before you commit either way. Weighing a routing-style gateway too? See how NativePort compares to both.