Learn how Laminar 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
Self-hosted
Repository

Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

Latitude appears to have several advantages over Laminar, particularly in growth and licensing. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Both tools have similar popularity levels, with Laminar having 3,182 stars and Latitude having 4,595 stars on GitHub. In terms of developer contributions, Latitude has 379 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
Latitude is growing faster, adding 136 stars in the last 30 days (+3.1%) against adding 80 stars for Laminar (+2.6%). Latitude is both larger and pulling further ahead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Laminar last updated 1 day ago and Latitude 9 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Typescript, JSX. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Laminar uses Python, Next.js, Rust while Latitude leverages Bash, SvelteKit.
Both projects started around the same time, with Laminar beginning 2 years ago and Latitude 2 years ago.
Latitude uses the MIT license, which is more permissive than Laminar's Apache-2.0 license, potentially offering greater flexibility for commercial use and integration.
Both tools serve similar use cases in LLM Observability & Evaluation.
Both Laminar and Latitude offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.