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
2 days agoRepository age
2 yearsVersion
7.18.0License
MITSelf-hosted
YesRepository
latitude-llm
Last 30 days
Last commit
19 hours agoRepository age
3 yearsVersion
2.1.1License
Apache-2.0Self-hosted
YesRepository
openlit/openlit
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 4,746 stars vs 2,965 stars for **OpenLIT **. The 60% higher star count indicates stronger community adoption. In terms of developer contributions, **OpenLIT ** has 471 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
OpenLIT ** is growing faster, adding 131 stars in the last 30 days (+4.6%) against adding 30 stars for Latitude (+0.6%**). 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 2 days ago and **OpenLIT ** 19 hours 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.