Two ways to serve open and frontier models behind your product: Together AI, an open-model cloud built for very broad open-weight breadth, low per-token price, and fast inference; or Amazon Bedrock, AWS’s fully managed multi-model service running inside your AWS account with enterprise security, compliance, and AWS-native governance. This is a neutral, end-to-end comparison — model availability, pricing shape (with worked math), fine-tuning, data control, compliance and enterprise controls (IAM/VPC) — ending in an honest “Together wins when / Bedrock wins when,” a migration path, and a decision table.
Both are model-serving platforms reachable through one API, but they are built around different center-of-gravity assumptions. Together AI is optimized for the open-weight ecosystem and price-per-token; Bedrock is optimized for running many models — open and closed — under AWS’s security and governance umbrella.
Together AI is an inference-and-training cloud built primarily around open-weight models. It exposes a very large catalog — Meta Llama, Mistral and Mixtral, Qwen, DeepSeek, Google Gemma, and a long tail of community models — through an OpenAI-compatible API, with a focus on high throughput, low latency, and low per-token cost. Beyond serverless token billing, Together offers dedicated/reserved endpoints for steady high-volume workloads, fine-tuning (including full and parameter-efficient methods) on open models, and GPU access for custom training. You are buying breadth of open models plus speed and price, with a lot of control over the open-weight stack.
Amazon Bedrock is AWS’s fully managed service for accessing many foundation models through a single API, with a consistent multi-turn interface (the Converse API) across providers. The model menu spans Anthropic (Claude), Meta (Llama), Mistral, Amazon (Nova and Titan), Cohere, AI21, Stability AI, and DeepSeek — a mix of closed frontier models and open-weight models. Around the models, Bedrock provides managed Knowledge Bases (RAG), Agents, Guardrails, Flows, Prompt Management, evaluation, and fine-tuning — all running inside your AWS account, under AWS IAM, VPC, and compliance.
So the real choice is rarely “one Together model vs one Bedrock model.” It is “a specialist open-model cloud with the widest open-weight catalog and the lowest per-token price” versus “a multi-model platform inside your cloud with AWS-native security, compliance, and the closed frontier models (like Claude) alongside open ones.” Both can serve Llama; only Together leans all-in on the open long tail, and only Bedrock gives you Claude and AWS-native governance in the same place.
This page stays neutral. Both are strong in 2026. Model catalogs, prices, and features change fast in this category — treat specifics here as representative of 2026 and confirm on each vendor’s live pricing and model pages before standardizing.
The first real difference is the shape of the catalog. Together AI maximizes open-weight breadth; Bedrock curates a smaller set spanning open and closed providers, including frontier models you cannot get on an open-model cloud.
Together AI: the widest open catalog. Together’s pitch is access to a very large number of open-weight models — multiple Llama sizes, Mistral and Mixtral, Qwen, DeepSeek, Gemma, and a deep long tail of community and specialized models (chat, code, embeddings, vision, image, and more) — all under one OpenAI-compatible API. If your strategy is built on open weights (for cost, transparency, customization, or the ability to self-host later), Together gives you the broadest menu and lets you trial new open models almost as soon as they are released. The trade-off: it is overwhelmingly an open-model world — you will not find closed frontier models like Claude there.
Bedrock: curated, open + closed. Bedrock offers fewer total models, but the set is curated across providers and crucially includes closed frontier models (Anthropic’s Claude family, Amazon’s Nova) alongside open-weight ones (Llama, Mistral, and others). You can run Claude for nuanced reasoning and writing, Llama or Mistral for open-weight cost efficiency, and Amazon Nova for low-cost/low-latency volume — switching between them with minimal code change via the unified Converse API. The advantage is reach across the quality spectrum, including the frontier; the constraint is that the open long tail is narrower than a dedicated open-model cloud’s.
A candid way to frame it: if you want every notable open model and the freshest community releases, Together’s catalog is broader. If you want a curated set that also includes top closed models like Claude under one roof, Bedrock covers ground Together does not. Many teams discover the question is less “which has more models” and more “do I need a closed frontier model and AWS governance, or maximum open-weight breadth and price.”
Both bill primarily per token — per 1,000 (or per 1,000,000) input and output tokens, varying by model — so the structure is comparable and the real cost driver is which model you pick and how many tokens you push. Below is an illustrative worked example to show how to reason about it, not a price quote.
Together AI is widely positioned as a low-cost serverless option for open-weight models, with per-token rates for open models that are often very competitive, plus dedicated/reserved endpoints (you pay for capacity by the hour/minute) when steady throughput makes reserved cheaper than per-token. Bedrock also bills per token per model and adds cost levers of its own: Batch (~50% off on-demand), prompt caching, and Provisioned Throughput for reserved capacity. The honest comparison is per-model, not per-platform: for the same open-weight model and traffic, Together’s serverless rate is frequently lower, while Bedrock’s value shows up when you also need a closed frontier model, AWS-native governance, or its managed building blocks in the same bill.
Assume a customer-support assistant handling 100,000 conversations/month. Say each conversation averages 2,000 input tokens (system prompt + retrieved context + user turns) and 500 output tokens (the assistant’s replies). That is 200M input + 50M output tokens/month. The cost is then simply: (input tokens × input rate) + (output tokens × output rate), for whichever model you run.
To make the arithmetic concrete with illustrative rates (NOT current quotes — confirm live pricing): a small open model at ~$0.20 input / $0.20 output per 1M tokens costs (200 × $0.20) + (50 × $0.20) = $40 + $10 = ~$50/month. A mid-size open model at ~$0.60 input / $0.60 output per 1M is (200 × $0.60) + (50 × $0.60) = $120 + $30 = ~$150/month. A large open model at ~$1.50 / $2.00 per 1M is (200 × $1.50) + (50 × $2.00) = $300 + $100 = ~$400/month. A closed frontier model (available on Bedrock, not on an open-model cloud) at, say, $5 input / $15 output per 1M costs (200 × $5) + (50 × $15) = $1,000 + $750 = ~$1,750/month. Same traffic, a wide spread — mostly from model choice and class.
The lesson for “Bedrock vs Together on cost”: for the same open-weight model, Together’s serverless per-token price is often the lower headline number, which is a real advantage for high-volume open-model serving. But the bill is dominated by which model and how you trim tokens (prompt caching for repeated context, RAG instead of stuffing whole documents, Batch for non-urgent jobs, right-sized model routing). Bedrock’s Batch/caching/Provisioned-Throughput levers and its consolidated AWS billing can change the total-cost-of-ownership picture once governance, a closed model, or reserved capacity enter the mix — so price the specific models and volumes you would actually run on each side.
| Model class | Illustrative input $/1M | Illustrative output $/1M | Input cost | Output cost | Est. monthly |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Small open (Together or Bedrock) | $0.20 | $0.20 | $40 | $10 | ~$50 |
| Mid open (Together or Bedrock) | $0.60 | $0.60 | $120 | $30 | ~$150 |
| Large open (Together or Bedrock) | $1.50 | $2.00 | $300 | $100 | ~$400 |
| Closed frontier (Bedrock only, e.g. Claude) | $5.00 | $15.00 | $1,000 | $750 | ~$1,750 |
| Mid open + 50% batch (Bedrock) | $0.30 | $0.30 | $60 | $15 | ~$75 |
If you intend to adapt models to your domain, the two platforms differ in philosophy. Together leans into deep open-model customization and portability; Bedrock offers managed customization with AWS-native governance and a path to closed-model adaptation.
Together AI: open-model fine-tuning and ownership. Because Together is built on open weights, it offers fine-tuning (full fine-tuning and parameter-efficient methods such as LoRA) on open models, plus GPU access for custom training. A key open-model advantage is portability: a fine-tune on an open-weight base produces weights/adapters you can reason about and, in principle, run elsewhere (including self-hosting later), reducing platform lock-in at the model layer. For teams whose moat is a customized open model, Together gives more direct control over the training stack and the resulting artifact.
Bedrock: managed customization inside AWS. Bedrock provides fine-tuning and customization for supported models, model distillation, and (depending on the model) continued-pre-training options, all run as managed jobs inside your AWS account with your data staying in your AWS boundary. Custom models are served via Provisioned Throughput. The governance story is the draw — customization data is handled under AWS IAM/KMS/VPC and your compliance program — and Bedrock also lets you customize across a curated provider set. The trade-off versus a pure open-model cloud is that customization is more managed/abstracted and the open-weight long tail you can fine-tune is narrower.
The practical read: if your strategy centers on deeply customizing open-weight models and keeping ownership/portability of the result, Together’s open-model fine-tuning is a strong fit. If you want customization performed under AWS governance, with the option to also use closed models and managed RAG/Agents around them, Bedrock fits. Both let you fine-tune; the difference is open-model depth and portability versus managed, governed customization inside AWS.
For production systems, where your data goes and which compliance regime you can satisfy often outweigh raw capability. This is where the AWS-native vs specialist-cloud difference starts to bite.
Where inference runs. With Bedrock, inference runs inside your AWS account and chosen region; prompts and outputs stay within your AWS boundary, encrypted with your KMS keys, and Bedrock does not use them to train the base models. With Together AI, inference runs on Together’s platform; Together states (on its business terms) that it does not train on your data, and it offers dedicated endpoints for isolation and enterprise plans for stricter handling. Both are defensible; the structural difference is that Bedrock keeps processing inside your cloud account, while Together is a separate processor you call out to.
Compliance. Because Bedrock lives inside AWS, it inherits AWS’s broad compliance program (SOC, ISO, HIPAA-eligibility, FedRAMP in applicable regions, and more), and your existing AWS audit artifacts and Business Associate arrangements can extend to your model usage. Together AI maintains its own enterprise compliance posture (for example SOC 2-type attestations and enterprise data-handling options) that has matured over time; verify the exact certification you need on its current documentation. For organizations whose compliance story is already written around AWS, Bedrock slots in with less net-new diligence.
Residency. Bedrock gives data-residency control by region — you choose which AWS region processes the request, which matters for GDPR, regional sovereignty, and regulated industries — and that region map is the same one your other AWS services use. Together offers its own deployment regions and, on enterprise/dedicated arrangements, more control over where workloads run; check current region and residency options against your requirement. If you need inference pinned to a specific jurisdiction and tied to the rest of your cloud footprint, Bedrock’s explicit per-region model gives finer, more familiar control.
If your requirement is “inference must run inside our own cloud account, in a named region, under our existing IAM/KMS/compliance,” Bedrock is the structural fit — it is just another AWS service in your boundary. If you are comfortable with a vetted external processor and Together’s enterprise/dedicated controls meet your bar (often true for open-model teams prioritizing breadth and price), that asymmetry matters less. Verify the specific certification and region you need with each vendor.
For larger organizations, governance and integration are frequently the deciding axis. The question is how cleanly the service fits the access-control, networking, audit, and billing model you already operate — and for AWS shops, Bedrock has a structural advantage.
Identity and access (IAM). Bedrock is governed by AWS IAM — the same policies, roles, conditions, and organization-wide guardrails you already use for the rest of your AWS estate. You scope who can invoke which models, attach permission boundaries, and centralize control via AWS Organizations and IAM Identity Center. With Together AI you manage access through Together’s own API keys, organizations, and roles — capable, but a separate control plane from your cloud IAM.
Private networking (VPC/PrivateLink). Bedrock can be reached over AWS PrivateLink so traffic never traverses the public internet, keeping model calls inside your VPC and private network — a common hard requirement in regulated environments. Together calls go to Together’s API endpoints (with private/dedicated networking options on enterprise arrangements); for a security team that mandates private connectivity to every dependency, Bedrock’s in-VPC reach is a meaningful advantage.
Audit, monitoring, and billing. Bedrock integrates with AWS CloudTrail (API-level audit logging), CloudWatch (metrics/logs), and your existing AWS cost tooling — so model usage shows up in the same audit, observability, and consolidated bill as the rest of your infrastructure. Together provides its own usage dashboards, logs, and billing. The difference is consolidation: Bedrock folds into one cloud’s governance and one invoice; Together is a strong but separate system to administer and pay alongside your cloud. For AWS-native teams, that consolidation is often the whole point.
If your organization already runs on AWS and your security team mandates IAM-based access, private VPC connectivity, CloudTrail audit, and one consolidated bill for every dependency, Bedrock is the lower-friction fit — it is just another AWS service under your existing controls. If you are not AWS-centric, or Together’s enterprise controls already satisfy your requirements, that asymmetry matters less.
A fair comparison has to say plainly where each is the better choice. Here it is, without hedging — match your situation to the list that fits.
The most common honest summary: if your priority is open-model breadth, the lowest per-token price, and deep open-weight customization, Together AI is hard to beat for that brief. If you are an AWS shop or have real security, compliance, residency, or closed-frontier-model requirements, Bedrock’s structural advantages typically win. And note the overlap: both can serve open models like Llama, so the decision usually turns on whether you need maximum open breadth and price (Together) or AWS-native governance plus closed frontier models (Bedrock) — not on whether you can run open weights at all.
Your strategy is built on open-weight models and you want the widest catalog and the freshest community releases. You are price-sensitive at volume and want the lowest per-token serverless rate for open models. You want deep, portable open-model fine-tuning and ownership of the resulting weights/adapters (with the option to self-host later). You are not committed to AWS and do not need AWS-native IAM/VPC/CloudTrail governance baked in. You want fast iteration with an OpenAI-compatible API and dedicated endpoints when throughput justifies reserved capacity. For open-model-first teams and cost-focused, high-throughput workloads, Together is often the path of least resistance.
You are already on AWS and want inference under the same account, bill, IAM, VPC, and audit as everything else. You need enterprise security and compliance — data inside your AWS boundary, KMS encryption, SOC/ISO/HIPAA/FedRAMP coverage, and per-region residency. You need closed frontier models like Claude (not available on an open-model cloud) alongside open ones, under one API. You want private VPC connectivity to your model endpoint. You want managed RAG/Agents/Guardrails/Flows inside AWS and one consolidated bill. For AWS-native and governance-sensitive enterprises, Bedrock is usually the cleaner fit.
Teams frequently start on Together AI for open-model breadth and price, then move (or add) inference to Bedrock when enterprise security, compliance, residency, AWS consolidation, or a closed frontier model become requirements. The move is well-trodden and usually modest in effort.
The high-level shape of a Together → Bedrock migration:
If you are moving inference to Bedrock for enterprise security, compliance, residency, AWS consolidation or access to closed frontier models, CloudRoute matches you with a vetted AWS partner who has moved teams from open-model clouds to Bedrock. The partner handles model enablement, the API swap, fine-tune porting, prompt re-tuning and the governance wiring. When the work qualifies, the partner can file POC or incremental workload (IW) funding: $50K to $150K for startups. Depends on the workload; AWS approves. Startups pay CloudRoute nothing; partners pay CloudRoute a monthly membership plus 10% of AWS-approved funding.
One scannable view of the dimensions teams actually weigh. Treat model lists and pricing as representative of 2026 and confirm on each vendor’s pages — this category moves fast.
| Dimension | Amazon Bedrock | Together AI |
|---|---|---|
| Model focus | Curated multi-provider: open + closed frontier | Widest open-weight catalog |
| Closed frontier models (e.g. Claude) | Yes (Claude, Nova, and more) | No — open models only |
| Open-weight breadth | Good (Llama, Mistral, DeepSeek…) | Very broad, freshest open releases |
| Per-token price (same open model) | Competitive; Batch/caching/PT levers | Often the lowest serverless rate |
| Pricing model | Per token; Batch (~50% off), caching, Provisioned Throughput | Per token; dedicated/reserved endpoints |
| Fine-tuning | Managed, in-AWS; distillation; custom models | Deep open-model fine-tuning; portable weights |
| Where inference runs | Inside your AWS account/region | Together’s platform (dedicated options) |
| Identity / access control | AWS IAM (your existing model) | Together API keys / orgs / roles |
| Private networking | VPC / PrivateLink | Public API (private/dedicated on enterprise) |
| Audit / observability / billing | CloudTrail + CloudWatch + consolidated AWS bill | Together dashboards/logs + separate bill |
| Data residency by region | Explicit per AWS region | Together regions / enterprise options |
| Compliance program | AWS (SOC/ISO/HIPAA-eligible/FedRAMP…) | Together’s own (e.g. SOC 2); verify scope |
| Managed RAG / agents | Knowledge Bases, Agents, Flows, Guardrails | Bring-your-own / framework-based |
| Lock-in shape | AWS platform; low model lock-in (incl. closed) | Open-model portability; separate platform |
| Best fit | AWS-native / security / compliance / frontier teams | Open-model breadth / price / customization |
You fill in a short form: what you run today, what you want to move, test or build, your stage and your region.
We read your answers and pick one vetted AWS consulting partner that fits the work, the stack and the region. We reply within 24 hours; your matched partner reaches out within 5 business days.
Your matched partner scopes the test with you. Then it checks whether the test qualifies for POC (proof of concept) funding. A POC can fit whether or not you run on AWS today.
If the work qualifies, the partner files the funding request with AWS. AWS reviews it and decides. The amount depends on the workload.
CloudRoute is free for startups. Partners pay CloudRoute a monthly membership plus 10% of AWS-approved funding.
AWS Activate credits are separate, and you apply for them yourself. Use Activate Founders if no investor backs you. Use Activate Portfolio with the Org ID or invite from your VC, accelerator, incubator or angel group if it is an Activate Provider. A consulting partner cannot apply for Activate on your behalf.
If enterprise security, compliance, region residency, AWS consolidation or a closed frontier model like Claude is pushing you from an open-model cloud to Bedrock, CloudRoute matches you with a vetted AWS partner. When the work qualifies, the partner files POC or incremental workload (IW) funding: $50K to $150K for startups. Depends on the workload; AWS approves. CloudRoute is free for startups.