Learn how Helicone and **OpenLIT ** 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
12 days agoRepository age
4 yearsVersion
v2025.08.21-1License
Apache-2.0Repository
helicone/helicone
Last 30 days
Last commit
2 days agoRepository age
3 yearsVersion
2.1.1License
Apache-2.0Self-hosted
YesRepository
openlit/openlit
Both Helicone and **OpenLIT ** have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Helicone leads in popularity with 6,273 stars vs 2,970 stars for **OpenLIT **. The 111% higher star count indicates stronger community adoption. In terms of developer contributions, Helicone has 704 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
OpenLIT ** is growing faster, adding 133 stars in the last 30 days (+4.7%) against adding 61 stars for Helicone (+1%**). OpenLIT 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 12 days ago and **OpenLIT ** 2 days ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Bash, Typescript, JSX, Python, Next.js. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: **OpenLIT ** leverages Golang, C, Objective-C.
Both projects started around the same time, with Helicone beginning 4 years ago and **OpenLIT ** 3 years ago.
Both projects use the Apache-2.0 license, providing identical terms for usage and distribution.
Both tools serve similar use cases in LLM Observability & Evaluation.
**OpenLIT ** provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while Helicone may be primarily cloud-based or require different deployment approaches.