Helicone vs Langfuse
Two popular open-source-friendly observability tools. Helicone leans proxy-first and dead simple to adopt; Langfuse leans SDK-based tracing with stronger eval and prompt features.
At a glance
Helicone
- Integration
- Proxy (one-line) or async
- Strength
- Caching, cost tracking, simplicity
- Self-hosting
- Yes (OSS)
Langfuse
- Integration
- SDK instrumentation
- Strength
- Tracing depth, evals, prompt mgmt
- Self-hosting
- Yes (OSS)
Full comparison
| Helicone | Langfuse | |
|---|---|---|
| Integration | Proxy (one-line) or async | SDK instrumentation |
| Strength | Caching, cost tracking, simplicity | Tracing depth, evals, prompt mgmt |
| Self-hosting | Yes (OSS) | Yes (OSS) |
| Best for | Quick cost/latency visibility | Deeper eval and trace workflows |
| Framework fit | Agnostic | Agnostic |
Which should you choose?
Start with Helicone if you want visibility in an afternoon; choose Langfuse if you want richer tracing and evals and don’t mind SDK instrumentation. Many teams run Helicone first, then add Langfuse-style evals.
Frequently asked questions
What's the difference between Helicone and Langfuse?
Two popular open-source-friendly observability tools. Helicone leans proxy-first and dead simple to adopt; Langfuse leans SDK-based tracing with stronger eval and prompt features.
Which should I choose, Helicone or Langfuse?
Start with Helicone if you want visibility in an afternoon; choose Langfuse if you want richer tracing and evals and don’t mind SDK instrumentation. Many teams run Helicone first, then add Langfuse-style evals.