updated 2026-08-25 05:32 UTC

LiteLLM

BerriAI/litellm

The fastest, litest AI Gateway. Rust core with Python SDK. Call 100+ LLM APIs in OpenAI (or native) format with cost tra

LLM Gateways & Infra Python Grade B Listed NOASSERTION
76.5/100
Rank #84 of 1308
Compare LiteLLM

How does it stack up against its LLM Gateways & Infra neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →

Strong public trust posture, backed by multiple independent signals.

Open compare tool Suggest correction
Listing state
Listed
Evidence coverage
Grade A · 4/5 signals
Last push
2026-08-25 · 0d ago
Recent change
No recent signal change

Is LiteLLM safe? LiteLLM scores 76.5/100 (Grade B), ranked #84 of 1308 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage A (4 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found; OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 5.8/10; 64% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-08-25. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

Ranked neighbours in LLM Gateways & Infra

#2 Headroom — 86.6 (A) → #3 vLLM — 81.5 (A) → #5 Ollama — 67.7 (B) → #6 Instructor — 66.0 (B) →

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It
Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.
Recent Changes
2026-08-12
Provider Removed
Runtime surface shrank — no longer detected: Postgres
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signals Current OSSF Scorecard is 5.8/10. Tighten the weakest checks to improve public safety evidence.
Publish provenance Add package provenance or release attestations so users can verify where shipped artifacts came from.
Compare with Bifrost Get email alerts for LiteLLM View LLM Gateways & Infra Report missing data
97.3
Activity sub-score · out of 100
#4
In LLM Gateways & Infra

How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption. Grade B reflects the trust score band: A ≥ 80, B ≥ 65, C ≥ 50, D < 50. Evidence coverage A is separate — it grades how many independent signal types back the score (4 of 5), so a high score on thin evidence stays visible. Full methodology →

Signals refreshed 2026-08-25 05:32 UTC · Repo last pushed today

Rank Trend

2026-08-11 2026-08-25

Activity & Reach

Stars
57.2k
Forks
10.9k
Last Push
2026-08-25
today
Commits (4 wk)
2936
Downloads (7d)
177,335,553
pypi
HN mentions (30d)
11
Open Issues
1654
Rank Change
▲2
was #86

Analysis

HVTrust Dimensions vs LLM Gateways & Infra

76.5 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

LiteLLM LLM Gateways & Infra average (13 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits
10.4 / 25
in line with avg 10.1
Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance
10.8 / 18
1.1 below avg 11.9
Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard
13.4 / 17
1.3 above avg 12.1
Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity
20.0 / 20
3.2 above avg 16.8
AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads
20.0 / 20
6.1 above avg 13.9

Activity Inputs

97.3 / 100
StarsRepository reach
28.5 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
25.0 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
25 / 25
CommunityFork signal
18.8 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
5.8 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Aug 24, 2026
Signed Commits
64%
of last 100 commits verified
Binary-Artifacts 0
Branch-Protection 4
CI-Tests 10
CII-Best-Practices 0
Code-Review 10
Contributors 10
Dangerous-Workflow 10
Dependency-Update-Tool 10
Fuzzing 0
License 9
Maintained 10
Packaging -1
Pinned-Dependencies 5
SAST 7
Security-Policy 10
Signed-Releases -1
Token-Permissions 0
Vulnerabilities 0

Is LiteLLM safe?

Public supply-chain signals for LiteLLM are strong: it has multiple independent trust indicators in place. This does not replace your own security review, but LiteLLM carries less obvious unverified-evidence risk than projects with thin signals.
Does LiteLLM publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for LiteLLM. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does LiteLLM have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
LiteLLM has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 5.8/10. The Scorecard checks for branch protection, signed releases, dependency updates, fuzzing, code review, and other supply-chain hygiene items. See the full check breakdown on this page.
Is LiteLLM actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).
What license does LiteLLM use?
LiteLLM ships under NOASSERTION. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are LiteLLM's commits signed?
64% of the last 100 commits to LiteLLM are verified-signed (GPG, SSH, S/MIME, or GitHub's signing flow). Signed commits help confirm that code was authored by who the commit claims.

Not a safety endorsement. HVTracker describes what public signals show, not whether a project is safe for your use case. Run your own security review before adopting in production.

Compare LiteLLM head-to-head

LiteLLM vs Bifrost → LiteLLM vs Headroom → LiteLLM vs vLLM →

AI agent surface

MCP, providers, tool surface
Scored in HVTrust

These runtime-trust fields — detected from public repo docs and manifests — contribute a bounded adjustment to this project's HVTrust score alongside supply-chain evidence. The exact values each field can add or subtract are documented in the methodology → Compare this surface across every listed agent in the capability matrix →

MCP Server Support
high confidence
Implemented
LiteLLM appears to expose MCP server capabilities.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
External Service Dependencies
high confidence
6 detected
Public provider/service dependencies detected.
Credential signal: API keys or service config markers documented.
Tool / Plugin Surface
high confidence
Declared
Declared plugin/integration surface detected.
  • database
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
Package Provenance Drift
high confidence
Match
Published package metadata matches the tracked repo
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
  • MCP signal live
  • External deps live
  • Tool / plugin surface live
  • Package provenance drift live
How this surface has changed

Detected changes to LiteLLM's runtime surface and supply-chain posture, from daily public-signal snapshots. A change here means our detectors see something different — a genuinely changed capability, or better evidence of an existing one.

2026-08-12
Provider Removed
Runtime surface shrank — no longer detected: Postgres
2026-07-17
Provider Added
Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Multi-provider (LiteLLM)

Maintain LiteLLM?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores LiteLLM from public signals only — we never contact maintainers first. If a signal is wrong, stale, or missing (provenance you publish, a Scorecard you run, signed releases), tell us and we'll review it. Corrections are public and tracked on GitHub.

Submit a correction → Add the trust badge

Reputation Timeline

Signal history
HVTrust 1Surface 1Surface 1
2026-08-12
Provider Removed
Runtime surface shrank — no longer detected: Postgres
2026-07-17
Provider Added
Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Multi-provider (LiteLLM)
2026-05-29
HVTrust Changed
HVTrust up 10.0pts (63.5 → 73.5)
GitHub → PyPI: litellm

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers
HVTrust 76.5 Grade B
Markdown:
[![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/litellm.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/litellm)
HTML:
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/litellm"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/litellm.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>

Other agents in LLM Gateways & Infra

Data sources
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license) · PyPI / pypistats (downloads, provenance) · OpenSSF Scorecard CLI · Algolia HN Search API
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.3 · Raw JSON