Learn how Helicone and Latitude 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

Latitude appears to have several advantages over Helicone, particularly in growth, licensing and features. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Both tools have similar popularity levels, with Helicone having 6,084 stars and Latitude having 4,595 stars on GitHub. In terms of developer contributions, Helicone has 655 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
Latitude is growing faster, adding 136 stars in the last 30 days (+3.1%) against adding 113 stars for Helicone (+1.9%). Latitude is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Helicone last updated 3 days ago and Latitude 9 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Bash, Typescript, JSX. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Helicone uses Python, Next.js while Latitude leverages SvelteKit.
Helicone has been in development longer, starting 4 years ago, compared to Latitude which began 2 years ago. This 1.4-year head start suggests Helicone may have more mature features and established processes.
Latitude 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.
Latitude provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while Helicone may be primarily cloud-based or require different deployment approaches.