InferAll no-card NIM trial
A finite allowance for new accounts; it does not recur.
https://api.inferall.ai/v1Models mentioned
openai/gpt-oss-20bz-ai/glm-5.3-flashnvidia/nemotron-3-nano-omni-30b-a3b-reasoningmeta/muse-glimmer-30bnvidia/nemotron-3-ultra-550b-a55bz-ai/glm-5.3nvidia/riva-translate-4b-instruct-v2nvidia/nemotron-parse-2.0nvidia/nemotron-3.5-content-safetynvidia/llama-3.1-nemotron-safety-guard-8b-v3meta/llama-3.2-11b-vision-instructgoogle/diffusiongemma-26b-a4b-itnvidia/ising-calibration-1.5-31bnvidia/nemotron-3.5-lightning-30b-a3bEquivalent paid value
How this was valued: Modeled best-case envelope for the25-call trial using the eligible GLM5.3 exact-model OpenRouter context/output ceilings and $0.07/M input+$7/M output reference. The gateway may enforce smaller caps; this is not observed throughput or a paid credit. One simulated day represents the whole trial batch, with no daily reset. GLM5.3 is the highest-valued matched eligible text route in this comparison snapshot; unpriced/unmatched catalog IDs are excluded, not valued at zero.
Limits and terms
- Signup Nim Requests
- 25
- Expiry
- not published
- Reset
- One-time trial, not a daily refill.
- Paid Follow On
- A $5 activation purchase is required after trial exhaustion. It becomes spendable balance and unlocks $0 NIM routes plus advertised $5 monthly premium usage; this paid-gated follow-on is not counted as no-cost signup inference.
- Trial Counter Caveat
- Docs contain an illustrative cap=200 example; pricing and main docs explicitly say25. Inspect X-InferAll-Trial-Usage and key status for the enforced account cap.
What happens to your prompts?
Non-retention is described as unverified product intent, not a binding end-to-end promise; upstream model terms remain relevant.
- Plan Scope
- No-card NIM trial routed through InferAll and NVIDIA; public binding service/privacy agreements were not located.
- Prompt Retention
- No persistence is product intent, explicitly not yet verified end-to-end.
- Response Retention
- Same unresolved promise as prompts.
- Ordinary Logging
- Request/key identifiers, upstream/model, token counts, latency, status and timestamps; exact retention window unpublished.
- Model Training
- No binding gateway exclusion found; upstream NVIDIA terms also apply.
- Product Improvement
- Gateway and upstream scope not fully documented.
- Human Or Operator Access
- Gateway and upstream process plaintext during inference; no published no-access guarantee.
- Subprocessors And Routing
- Fly.io US gateway; Supabase authentication, Stripe billing and selected upstream providers.
- Deletion Controls
- No published inference-content deletion workflow or finalized retention schedule.
No provider terms or privacy-policy link is captured in this snapshot. Review the provider’s current legal documents before sending sensitive data.
Eligibility
- Account Required
- Yes
- Payment Method Required
- No
Primary sources
Before you build with InferAll no-card NIM trial
Read the classification narrowly
This record has current first-party evidence for some zero-cost hosted inference. The label describes the bounded offer supported by evidence on 2026-10-06; it does not guarantee permanence, production suitability, uptime, latency, model quality, or access from every region.
Resolve the live model route
This snapshot records 14 model IDs. Match the exact ID against the provider's live catalog before using it in code; zero-price routes and aliases can rotate while an older documentation page remains online. The recorded base endpoint is https://api.inferall.ai/v1, but the provider's current API reference remains authoritative for paths, authentication, and request shape.
Confirm account and billing boundaries
An account is required, so public catalog evidence cannot by itself prove the limits, balance, or billing behavior attached to your workspace. The reviewed evidence explicitly says no payment card is required. Re-check the signup flow because eligibility and billing controls can change after the snapshot. The equivalent paid value shown here prices a documented allowance where possible; it is not cash, guaranteed savings, or protection from overage.
Re-read the prompt policy for your plan
This record classifies the reviewed handling as “Partially private”: Non-retention is described as unverified product intent, not a binding end-to-end promise; upstream model terms remain relevant. Provider policies can distinguish free, paid, enterprise, opted-in, and feature-specific traffic, so verify the governing terms for the exact account and route that will receive your data.
Follow the evidence, then re-check it
The record links 6 first-party sources covering the offer, catalog, limits, pricing, terms, privacy, or adoption evidence available to the audit. Prefer the newest governing document or live catalog when sources disagree, and submit a correction when a provider changes a material term.
Match the quota to the workload shape
Translate the published allowance into the traffic pattern you actually expect instead of comparing headline totals alone. A daily token pool can look generous while a low requests-per-minute or concurrency ceiling blocks interactive bursts; a high request limit can still fail a long-context job when input, output, or per-request tokens are capped. Separate prompt tokens from generated tokens, include retries and tool calls, and test the largest realistic payload. If the provider documents more than one limit window, the tightest window at your peak load is the practical ceiling. Research, experimental, and community access can also carry eligibility or fair-use constraints that cannot be modeled as a simple number.
Plan fallback without changing the rules
A fallback should preserve more than API syntax. Confirm that the substitute route supports the required modality, context length, streaming behavior, structured output, tools, and safety controls, then compare its prompt-retention and training terms. An OpenAI-compatible request shape does not make providers operationally or contractually equivalent. Decide which errors may trigger a retry, cap retry storms, and prevent an exhausted free route from silently switching to a billable model. If deterministic output matters, record the model revision and sampling settings; rotating aliases and free-model pools can change behavior even when the endpoint remains available.
Monitor the offer as a dependency
Capture the model ID, response model field, rate-limit headers, usage fields, latency, HTTP status, and any provider request identifier for each test. Watch for authorization failures, quota exhaustion, catalog removal, policy revisions, and dashboard balance changes as separate failure modes. Re-check the provider’s live catalog and governing pages on a schedule proportionate to the workload’s importance, and keep the dated sources that supported your decision. Free capacity is especially suitable for prototypes, evaluations, fallbacks, and bounded workloads when the application can tolerate change; a production dependency still needs observability, an exit path, and an owner responsible for re-verification.
Test one complete request before scaling
Start with the smallest permitted request using the exact credential, model ID, endpoint, and account type you intend to deploy. Record the HTTP status, response headers, usage fields, latency, and any dashboard balance change. Then exercise the failure path: an invalid model, an exhausted quota, or a rate-limit response should fail clearly without silently switching to a paid route. If the provider supports streaming or tool calls, validate those features separately because a free model can expose a narrower capability set than its paid counterpart. Keep a budget ceiling outside the application whenever billing is possible, and avoid sending sensitive data until the observed route matches the reviewed data agreement.