Polyaxon v3 is coming →

Polyaxon vs Together AI

Compare Polyaxon and Together AI across training, inference, GPU clusters, workload orchestration, metadata, infrastructure control, and deployment scope.

Which platform fits

Your platform team must control Kubernetes execution, workload policy, metadata, and portability.

Teams want managed model APIs, fine-tuning, dedicated inference, or provider-operated GPU capacity.

Polyaxon owns the workflow and governance while selected inference or fine-tuning steps use Together APIs.

Capability comparison

This table describes product scope and operating responsibility. It is not a benchmark or a count of integrations.

Primary scope

A general AI workload, orchestration, scheduling, tracking, and registry control plane for Kubernetes.

A managed AI acceleration cloud spanning serverless model APIs, fine-tuning, dedicated endpoints, containers, and GPU clusters.

Training

Runs custom containerized training, distributed operators, matrices, and pipelines on connected compute.

Provides managed fine-tuning APIs plus GPU clusters for training, fine-tuning, and large batch workloads.

Inference

Schedules custom services and lifecycle workflows; teams operate the model server and Kubernetes runtime they choose.

Offers serverless APIs, reserved-hardware dedicated endpoints, batch inference, and dedicated containers.

Compute ownership

Runs on organization-controlled or connected Kubernetes clusters with explicit images, resources, queues, and policy.

Abstracts hosted inference infrastructure and offers provider-managed GPU clusters with Kubernetes or Slurm access.

Workflow orchestration

Built-in DAGs, matrices, schedules, hooks, retries, approvals, and multi-cluster routing coordinate many workload types.

APIs and CLI manage files, fine-tuning, evals, endpoints, containers, and clusters; broader cross-system workflows stay with the caller.

Metadata and registries

Runs, metrics, artifacts, models, components, datasets, and prompts remain linked through lifecycle metadata.

Provider resources expose their own models, files, jobs, evaluations, checkpoints, endpoints, and cluster state.

Portability

Containerized workloads can move across Kubernetes environments while preserving the Polyaxon operation model.

Model APIs provide a consistent Together interface; dedicated infrastructure and services remain provider-specific.

Best fit

Platform teams building a portable, governed execution layer across heterogeneous AI workloads.

Teams optimizing time to hosted inference, fine-tuning, or dedicated GPU capacity without operating the full stack.

Relevant product previews

These previews may affect the decision, but they are not included as generally available capabilities in the comparison above.

AI gateway

Polyaxon is testing an AI gateway with private-beta customers. Teams evaluating gateway coverage can request access and validate it against their model, provider, policy, and traffic requirements.

Preview scope and timelines may change.

Ask about private access

When each platform fits

Choose Polyaxon when

  • The organization has Kubernetes infrastructure, custom runtimes, data locality, or multi-cloud policy it must control.
  • Training, data processing, evaluations, services, distributed jobs, and pipelines require one declarative control plane.
  • Experiment metadata, artifacts, registries, resource policy, and workload execution should stay connected.

Choose Together AI when

  • The fastest path is an OpenAI-compatible hosted model API or a dedicated endpoint with managed serving optimizations.
  • Teams want managed fine-tuning and GPU infrastructure without assembling schedulers, model servers, and cloud capacity.
  • Provider-operated performance and capacity matter more than Kubernetes-level portability and control.

Using Polyaxon with Together AI

A Polyaxon component can call Together APIs for inference, fine-tuning, evaluations, or batch work while Polyaxon records the surrounding workflow, inputs, outputs, and approvals. Dedicated Together GPU clusters can also remain a separate compute estate with an explicit API or artifact boundary.

  • Keep Together job and endpoint identifiers in Polyaxon run metadata.
  • Separate provider credentials from workload source and pass only the permissions each component needs.
  • Avoid duplicate retry ownership around paid API calls; make idempotency and output persistence explicit.

Evaluation plan

  • Name the serving and training paths

    List which workloads need model APIs, dedicated endpoints, custom containers, fine-tuning, full GPU clusters, or Kubernetes-native execution.

  • Benchmark a representative workload

    Measure quality, latency, throughput, startup, data movement, failure recovery, and total cost using expected traffic and model sizes.

  • Score platform control

    Compare identity, data residency, observability, artifact ownership, portability, workflow composition, and day-two operations.

Sources

Product capabilities change. Follow the linked documentation for current details.

Compare against your requirements

We can map your current scheduler, tracking stack, storage, GPU policy, and migration constraints before you commit to a platform change.