Why You Should Stop Hardcoding AI Providers in 2025 (and What to Do Instead)

You’re building fast, shipping features, and delivering real value to users. Somewhere in your stack, you’ve dropped in fetch() calls to OpenAI’s API or glued in Claude via some SDK. It works. It’s fine. Until it’s not.

In 2025, hardcoding a single AI provider is no longer just a short-term hack, it’s a strategic risk. The LLM landscape is evolving weekly, and sticking to one vendor introduces fragility, lock-in, and missed opportunities in speed, cost, and compliance.

Let’s explore why binding your stack to one provider is a bad idea, and what a better foundation looks like.

Model Quality Varies by Task (and Changes Fast)

Every LLM has its sweet spot. GPT-4o dominates general reasoning. Claude 3.5 is elite for summarization. Gemini 1.5 has multimodal advantages. But that landscape is dynamic, and today’s winner may underperform tomorrow.

Hardcoding a provider means locking yourself out of the evolving model ecosystem.

Example: If you’re building a product that relies on summarizing legal documents, Claude might be the best today. But if a new model fine-tuned on legal corpora drops next month, you’re stuck, or facing a rewrite.

Cost Arbitrage Is Real (and Worth Chasing)

LLMs aren’t priced equally. Model A might cost $15 per million tokens; Model B could be $3. If they produce similar results for your use case, you’re paying a 5x markup for the convenience of sticking to one provider.

Now multiply that over millions of tokens per day, and it’s not a minor optimization, it’s your margin.

Here’s a simplified example:

const tokenVolume = 10_000_000; // 10M tokens per month
const gpt4Cost = tokenVolume * 0.03; // $0.03/token
const mistralCost = tokenVolume * 0.005; // $0.005/token
console.log(`GPT-4 cost: $${gpt4Cost}`);    // $300,000
console.log(`Mistral cost: $${mistralCost}`); // $50,000

Even if GPT-4 is slightly better, is it 6x better? Probably not. Without abstraction, you’ll never know.

Vendor Lock-In Slows Your Roadmap

Hardcoding a provider often means:

• Custom retry logic tied to that vendor's quirks
• Tokenization assumptions baked into your prompt logic

• SDKs or auth patterns spread across services
• Prompt formats tuned to one model's behavior

Switching later becomes painful. Teams delay it. Eventually, it’s "we’ll deal with it next quarter." By then, you've accumulated AI-specific tech debt that’s harder to unwind than any framework migration.

Compliance Requirements Don’t Wait

Let’s say you're launching in the EU. Your current AI vendor doesn’t support EU data residency. Now what?

Or you land a customer in healthcare and need full HIPAA compliance. Your hardcoded vendor can’t provide a Business Associate Agreement (BAA). Suddenly, your roadmap is blocked by your stack.

The solution? Be portable from day one.

Abstraction Unlocks A/B Testing and Routing

Once you're abstracted from the provider, everything changes:

• You can route creative writing tasks to GPT-5, summaries to Claude.
• You can A/B test Claude vs Gemini in production.
• You can retry a failed OpenAI call on a fallback model like Mistral.

These routing patterns aren’t theoretical. They’re how high-performance teams optimize latency, cost, and accuracy in real time.

Prompt Portability Is a Myth, Until You Abstract

Different models interpret the same prompt in different ways. Tokens aren’t counted the same. Output structures vary. Without abstraction, you’ll rewrite your prompt chains every time you switch.

A well-designed abstraction layer lets you:

• Normalize model outputs
• Convert between prompt formats
• Log and version prompt behavior
• Use a consistent API for model, temperature, tools, etc.

That’s how you build prompts that last beyond one vendor.

What To Do Instead: Architect for Model Flexibility

Start treating your LLM like any other dependency:

• Encapsulate your LLM calls in a single internal interface
• Don’t let frontend teams call the LLM directly
• Log every prompt, completion, latency, and cost
• Add metadata: model, version, tokens used
• Use a provider-agnostic SDK or platform

Model Choice Is a Moving Target, Your Infra Should Be Too

The best AI model for your product isn’t fixed, it’s contextual. It depends on:

• Your task
• Your budget
• Your latency tolerance
• Your compliance needs
• Your region

Hardcoding a provider was excusable in 2023. In 2025, it’s a competitive disadvantage.

AnyAPI makes it easy to route across 400+ models, from OpenAI and Anthropic to Mistral and Llama 3, using a single interface. Whether you’re optimizing for cost, compliance, or capability, AnyAPI ensures your app stays flexible as the LLM stack evolves.

Because if you’re serious about shipping with AI, the last thing you want is to rebuild every time the leaderboard shifts.

‍