Learn how Latitude 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
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

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

Both Latitude 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.
Latitude leads in popularity with 4,723 stars vs 2,858 stars for **OpenLIT **. The 65% higher star count indicates stronger community adoption. In terms of developer contributions, **OpenLIT ** has 440 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
OpenLIT ** is growing faster, adding 86 stars in the last 30 days (+3.1%) against adding 64 stars for Latitude (+1.4%**). 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 Latitude last updated 8 hours ago and **OpenLIT ** 4 days ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Bash, Typescript, JSX. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Latitude uses SvelteKit while **OpenLIT ** leverages Python, Next.js, Golang, C, Objective-C.
Both projects started around the same time, with Latitude beginning 2 years ago and **OpenLIT ** 3 years ago.
Latitude uses the MIT license, which is more permissive than **OpenLIT **'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 Latitude and **OpenLIT ** offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.