Learn how Helicone and Langfuse differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these llm observability & evaluation is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Repository
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

Langfuse appears to have several advantages over Helicone, particularly in popularity, growth, licensing and features. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Langfuse significantly outpaces Helicone in community adoption with 33,392 stars compared to 6,084 stars on GitHub. This 5.5x difference suggests Langfuse has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Langfuse has 3,593 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Langfuse is growing faster, adding 1,889 stars in the last 30 days (+6%) against adding 113 stars for Helicone (+1.9%). Langfuse is both larger and pulling further ahead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Helicone last updated 3 days ago and Langfuse 7 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Bash, Typescript, JSX, Next.js. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Helicone uses Python.
Both projects started around the same time, with Helicone beginning 4 years ago and Langfuse 3 years ago.
Langfuse uses the MIT license, which is more permissive than Helicone's Apache-2.0 license, potentially offering greater flexibility for commercial use and integration.
Both tools serve similar use cases in LLM Observability & Evaluation.
Langfuse provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while Helicone may be primarily cloud-based or require different deployment approaches.