Learn how llama.cpp and vLLM differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these local model runners is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Repository

Stars
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

Both llama.cpp and vLLM have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Both tools have similar popularity levels, with llama.cpp having 129,378 stars and vLLM having 92,594 stars on GitHub. In terms of developer contributions, llama.cpp has 23,668 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
llama.cpp is growing faster, adding 3,780 stars in the last 30 days (+3%) against adding 0 stars for vLLM (0%). llama.cpp is both larger and pulling further ahead.
Both projects show recent activity, with llama.cpp last updated 5 hours ago and vLLM 4 hours ago.
Both projects started around the same time, with llama.cpp beginning 4 years ago and vLLM 4 years ago.
llama.cpp uses the MIT license, which is more permissive than vLLM's Apache-2.0 license, potentially offering greater flexibility for commercial use and integration.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Local Model Runners.
vLLM provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while llama.cpp may be primarily cloud-based or require different deployment approaches.