diff --git a/docs/my-website/docs/benchmarks_comparison.md b/docs/my-website/docs/benchmarks_comparison.md
deleted file mode 100644
index 067a9ba90e9..00000000000
--- a/docs/my-website/docs/benchmarks_comparison.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,93 +0,0 @@
-# LiteLLM vs Portkey Performance Comparison
-
-**Test Configuration**:
-
-- 4 CPUs, 8 GB RAM per instance
-- Load testing with 1k concurrent users, 500 ramp up
-
----
-
-## Single Instance Results
-
-### Portkey (Single Instance no DB)
-
-| Metric              | Value       |
-| ------------------- | ----------- |
-| **Total Requests**  | 95,374      |
-| **Failed Requests** | 24 (0.025%) |
-| **Median Latency**  | 170ms       |
-| **95th Percentile** | 6,400ms     |
-| **99th Percentile** | 9,500ms     |
-| **Average Latency** | 1,076ms     |
-| **Current RPS**     | 526.6       |
-
-### LiteLLM (Single Instance with DB)
-
-| Metric               | Value                     |
-| -------------------- | ------------------------- |
-| **Total Requests**   | 133,364                   |
-| **Failed Requests**  | 3 (0.002%)                |
-| **Median Latency**   | 490ms                     |
-| **95th Percentile**  | 2,700ms                   |
-| **99th Percentile**  | 3,300ms                   |
-| **Average Latency**  | 1,103ms                   |
-| **Current RPS**      | 588.5                     |
-| **LiteLLM Overhead** | 40ms (median), 59ms (p95) |
-
----
-
-## Multi-Instance Results (4x Instances)
-
-### Portkey (no DB)
-
-| Metric              | Value   |
-| ------------------- | ------- |
-| **Total Requests**  | 293,796 |
-| **Failed Requests** | 0       |
-| **Median Latency**  | 100ms   |
-| **95th Percentile** | 230ms   |
-| **99th Percentile** | 500ms   |
-| **Average Latency** | 123ms   |
-| **Current RPS**     | 1,170.9 |
-
-### LiteLLM (with DB)
-
-| Metric              | Value   |
-| ------------------- | ------- |
-| **Total Requests**  | 312,405 |
-| **Failed Requests** | 0       |
-| **Median Latency**  | 120ms   |
-| **95th Percentile** | 210ms   |
-| **99th Percentile** | 590ms   |
-| **Average Latency** | 135ms   |
-| **Current RPS**     | 1,132.1 |
-
----
-
-## Key Takeaways
-
-**Single Instance**:
-
-- LiteLLM: 88% fewer failures (3 vs 24)
-- LiteLLM: 58% better p95 latency (2,700ms vs 6,400ms)
-- LiteLLM: 65% better p99 latency (3,300ms vs 9,500ms)
-
-**Multi-Instance (4x)**: Both systems perform comparably with zero failures and similar RPS (~1,150 RPS).
-
-## Technical Observations
-
-**Portkey**
-
-* **Memory:** Low memory footprint.
-* **CPU Utilization:** Does not fully utilize available CPUs, reaching only ~40% utilization.
-* **Stability:** Experienced 3 outages during testing due to I/O timeout connection issues.
-* **Performance:** Struggled with connection handling and delivered significantly poorer single-instance performance compared to LiteLLM.
-* **Performance Oscillation:** Exhibits fewer latency spikes, resulting in more stable performance from the beginning.
-
-**LiteLLM**
-
-* **Memory:** High memory usage during both initialization and per-request processing.
-* **CPU Utilization:** Fully utilizes available CPU resources.
-* **Stability:** Experienced 1 outage due to out-of-memory (OOM) errors.
-* **Performance:** Demonstrates robust connection handling on single instances, though memory usage remains high.
-* **Performance Oscillation:** Achieves low latency the longer it runs, with a few initial spikes.
\ No newline at end of file