---
title: "Liquid API | Ethical Stack"
url: https://ethicalstack.ai/providers/liquid-api/
catalog_version: f6baff2119d0e9158520da7fbe4232011dac79f25bd08757436d7a1dbd593db2
---

# Liquid API

Liquid-hosted access to text and decision models, with API keys and billing managed in Liquid Console.

Canonical profile: https://ethicalstack.ai/providers/liquid-api/

Scope: Direct Liquid Console/API service; OpenRouter and other resellers have separate data-handling terms.

Published overall: 2.4; 5/6 dimensions rated.

Round the equal-weight mean of available numerical ratings to one decimal; require at least four of six for an overall score. BDS status stays outside the mean; for eligible profiles, a boycott target caps the final score at 2/10 and a pressure target subtracts one point (minimum 1). Not listed and not checked do not adjust the score.

## Energy practices

Finding: 3/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/providers/liquid-api/#energy

The hosting route is described, but its electricity supply and full footprint are not.

Reason: 1 + 1 reporting + 0 electricity + 1 controls = 3/10. This grades documented practices and transparency.

Argument: This rating credits documented practices, not assumed energy savings. Liquid documents a hosted route. The API pricing page offers cached-input pricing on the listed text model; that is a reuse option, not evidence of clean power or measured carbon savings.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (dimension): Direct Liquid Console/API service; OpenRouter and other resellers have separate data-handling terms.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: Comparable task-level electricity, water, training footprint and independently verified clean-power sourcing are not published for this choice.

```json
{
  "method": "practices-transparency-v1",
  "scope": "Direct Liquid Console/API service; OpenRouter and other resellers have separate data-handling terms.",
  "components": {
    "disclosure": {
      "score": 1,
      "reason": "The documented route identifies where inference can run, without an audited environmental footprint.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://www.liquid.ai/pricing"
      ]
    },
    "electricity": {
      "score": 0,
      "reason": "No attributable electricity procurement or hourly clean-power evidence was found in the cited material.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://www.liquid.ai/pricing",
        "https://www.liquid.ai/company"
      ]
    },
    "demand": {
      "score": 1,
      "reason": "Cached-input pricing gives one documented reuse option; availability depends on the selected model.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://www.liquid.ai/pricing",
        "https://www.liquid.ai/pricing"
      ]
    }
  },
  "actualImpactMeasured": false
}
```

- [Liquid AI API, license and custom deployment pricing](https://www.liquid.ai/pricing) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

- [Liquid AI complete model library](https://docs.liquid.ai/lfm/models/complete-library) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

- [Liquid AI local inference guide](https://docs.liquid.ai/deployment/on-device/llama-cpp) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

- [Liquid AI company values](https://www.liquid.ai/company) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

## Training data

Finding: Depends on the model

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/providers/liquid-api/#training-rights

Training-data rights depend on the model you run.

Reason: Choose a model to assess its training-data rights.

Argument: This service or engine can run different Liquid models. A single training-data rating would hide those differences. Check the chosen model’s profile and any base model it builds on; local processing and enterprise no-training terms concern new inputs, not permission for the original training data.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (profile): Direct Liquid Console/API service; OpenRouter and other resellers have separate data-handling terms.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: The selected model, checkpoint and any customer fine-tuning data determine the training-rights assessment.

```json
{
  "method": "training-rights-evidence-v1",
  "scope": "The stated training release or selected model",
  "components": null,
  "routeDependency": "Choose a model to assess its training-data rights.",
  "modelReference": null
}
```

- [Liquid AI API, license and custom deployment pricing](https://www.liquid.ai/pricing) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

- [Liquid AI complete model library](https://docs.liquid.ai/lfm/models/complete-library) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

- [Liquid AI privacy policy](https://www.liquid.ai/privacy-policy) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

## Your data & privacy

Finding: 3/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/providers/liquid-api/#privacy

Standard hosted terms allow content reuse for model training and leave retention open-ended.

Reason: 3/10 reflects standard content-training rights and retention discretion; a separately negotiated agreement can change the assessment.

Argument: Liquid’s standard service terms grant rights to use submitted content for training, fine-tuning and evaluation, and allow retention as reasonably necessary. Separate service or enterprise terms can override this. This score covers the standard public route, not a negotiated no-training contract.

Type: argument; confidence: high

Scope (profile): Direct Liquid Console/API service; OpenRouter and other resellers have separate data-handling terms.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: A fixed deletion period, default training opt-out and the exact subprocessors for this account are not specified in the reviewed public terms.

- [Liquid AI API, license and custom deployment pricing](https://www.liquid.ai/pricing) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

- [Liquid AI privacy policy](https://www.liquid.ai/privacy-policy) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

- [Liquid Console and API terms](https://www.liquid.ai/terms-conditions) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

## Openness

Finding: 2/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/providers/liquid-api/#openness

The service is proprietary; some related models and developer tools are published.

Reason: 2/10 credits limited public technical documentation; the application/engine itself remains proprietary.

Argument: The reviewed official sources do not offer the complete application or serving engine under an open-source license. Liquid’s published weights, MIT-licensed Finetune tools and Apache-licensed Pipette clients are separate artifacts and do not make this service open.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (profile): Direct Liquid Console/API service; OpenRouter and other resellers have separate data-handling terms.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: Complete production source and independently reproducible service behavior are not publicly supplied.

- [Liquid AI API, license and custom deployment pricing](https://www.liquid.ai/pricing) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

- [LFM Open License guide](https://docs.liquid.ai/lfm/help/model-license) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

- [Liquid Finetune official repository](https://github.com/Liquid4All/liquid-finetune) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

- [Pipette official benchmark clients](https://github.com/Liquid4All/pipette-clients) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

## Worker protections

Finding: 2/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/providers/liquid-api/#labour

Liquid publishes hiring and wellbeing commitments, but little evidence about its wider AI workforce.

Reason: 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 = 2/10. Documented worker protections; missing disclosure is an evidence gap.

Argument: Its careers page commits to equal opportunity and interview accommodations; company values mention wellbeing. These earn limited policy credit. The reviewed sources provide no contractor pay standards, protected grievance channel or independent evidence covering annotation, moderation and other AI supply-chain work. This entry carries the same developer/operator finding to Liquid API; it does not establish that this product was deployed under every cited relationship.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (dimension): Liquid AI: the documented developer/operator record, not proof of deployment of Liquid API.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: Contractor conditions, worker representation, grievance outcomes and independent workforce audits remain undisclosed.

```json
{
  "method": "worker-safeguards-evidence-v1",
  "entity": "liquid-ai",
  "company": "Liquid AI",
  "scope": "Liquid AI employees and AI supply-chain workers",
  "components": {
    "conditions": {
      "score": 1,
      "reason": "Public equal-opportunity and accommodation commitments provide basic policy evidence.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://www.liquid.ai/careers"
      ]
    },
    "voice": {
      "score": 0,
      "reason": "No worker grievance or representation safeguard was found in the reviewed public material.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://www.liquid.ai/company",
        "https://www.liquid.ai/careers"
      ]
    },
    "assurance": {
      "score": 0,
      "reason": "No independent worker-level implementation review was supplied in these sources.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://www.liquid.ai/company",
        "https://www.liquid.ai/careers"
      ]
    }
  },
  "disclosureLimited": true
}
```

- [Liquid AI careers and equal-opportunity statement](https://www.liquid.ai/careers) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

- [Liquid AI company values](https://www.liquid.ai/company) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

## Military ties

Finding: 2/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/providers/liquid-api/#military-contracts

Liquid actively offers tactical AI for threat detection, ISR and uncrewed systems.

Reason: 1 + 1 use restrictions + 1 enforcement & oversight + 1 relationship disclosure = 4, capped at 2/10. Known defense ties lower this rating; safeguards can improve it within the relationship’s cap.

Argument: Liquid’s defense page markets on-device models for combat-relevant intelligence and autonomous systems. We treat that operational offering as direct military enablement under the rubric, which caps the score at 2. Its general service terms prohibit unlawful harm and permit suspension, but do not rule out defense use. This is evidence of an offering, not proof that any particular checkpoint has been deployed by a named military customer. This entry carries the same developer/operator finding to Liquid API; it does not establish that this product was deployed under every cited relationship.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (dimension): Liquid AI: the documented developer/operator record, not proof of deployment of Liquid API.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: Named defense contracts, actual deployments, customer screening and independent oversight are not disclosed on the reviewed page.

```json
{
  "method": "military-ties-priority-v2",
  "entity": "liquid-ai",
  "company": "Liquid AI",
  "scope": "Liquid AI’s advertised defense offering; no specific model deployment inferred",
  "components": {
    "restrictions": {
      "score": 1,
      "reason": "General prohibitions cover unlawful harm; no blanket restriction on operational military use is stated.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://www.liquid.ai/terms-conditions"
      ]
    },
    "oversight": {
      "score": 1,
      "reason": "Terms allow suspension for violations, without a disclosed military-use review process.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://www.liquid.ai/terms-conditions"
      ]
    },
    "transparency": {
      "score": 1,
      "reason": "The defense offering is public, but customers, contract scope and deployments are not named.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://www.liquid.ai/defense"
      ]
    }
  },
  "disclosureLimited": false,
  "relationship": "direct-operational",
  "relationshipReason": "The vendor explicitly offers tactical threat detection, ISR, dismounted-team decision support and onboard perception for autonomous uncrewed systems; this is operational military enablement, without a claim of a named contract.",
  "score": 2,
  "baseScore": 1,
  "safeguardPoints": 3,
  "safeguardAdjustment": 3,
  "rawScore": 4,
  "cap": 2
}
```

- [Liquid AI defense offering](https://www.liquid.ai/defense) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

- [Liquid Console and API terms](https://www.liquid.ai/terms-conditions) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

## BDS targets

Finding: Not listed

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/providers/liquid-api/#israel-palestine

Liquid AI is not named in the checked BNC boycott and technology target lists.

Reason: Campaign category, excluded from numerical scoring.

Argument: The BNC consumer guide and No Tech campaign page do not name Liquid AI as a boycott or pressure target. This is a limited campaign-list finding; it is not an endorsement or a wider assessment of every supplier or customer. The defense offering is assessed separately in military ties. This entry carries the same developer/operator finding to Liquid API; it does not establish that this product was deployed under every cited relationship.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (dimension): Liquid AI: the documented developer/operator record, not proof of deployment of Liquid API.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: The checked lists do not identify every commercial relationship or local campaign.

- [BNC boycott and pressure guide](https://bdsmovement.net/Guide-to-BDS-Boycott) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

- [BNC No Tech campaign targets](https://bdsmovement.net/no-tech-oppression-apartheid-or-genocide) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

## Reading the evidence

- Assessments are provisional editorial judgments. Cite the profile and the underlying sources, and retain confidence, scope and unknowns.

- Unknown, not-applicable and model-dependent are different states. Missing evidence does not establish good or bad conduct.

- Company-level evidence does not establish use of a particular product or model. Account plan, model, host and route can change an assessment.

- Energy scores describe documented practices and transparency, not measured request emissions. Zero component points can mean an evidence gap.

- Published overall scores require at least four of six numerical dimensions. Preserve coverage and BDS adjustments; BDS itself is categorical.

- No named BDS target found is limited to the reviewed campaign sources and is not approval. Personalized priorities do not change the published overall score.

- Review and source-check dates describe the research, not this deployment. Fetch current primary sources when the decision requires current verification.

Methodology: https://ethicalstack.ai/methodology/