Bifrost vs LiteLLM
Bifrost leads on trust: 89.9/100 (Grade A) against 78.1/100 (Grade B), a 11.8-point gap. Bifrost leads on supply-chain integrity and provenance; LiteLLM leads on adoption and rests on broader evidence. Note: Bifrost's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage B vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types.
Open-source, high-performance AI gateway that works as your LLM gateway, MCP gateway and agent gateway. One OpenAI-compatible API for 10,000+ models, with failover, load balancing, semantic caching, virtual keys, budgets and MCP Code Mode. Works with any SDK or agent and adds under 200µs of…
Choose Bifrost if supply-chain integrity and provenance matter most.
- +9.1Safety / Integrity: OSSF Scorecard 7.3 against 5.9
- +7.2Identity / Provenance: package provenance attested, against none
- +1.2Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 7.3 against 5.9
The fastest, litest AI Gateway. Rust core with Python SDK. Call 100+ LLM APIs in OpenAI (or native) format with cost tracking, guardrails, load balancing, and logging [Bedrock, Azure, OpenAI, Anthropic, OpenAI, VertexAI, vLLM, Nvidia NIM]
Choose LiteLLM if adoption matters most.
- +6.5Adoption: 23.1M weekly downloads against 1k
- A vs BEvidence coverage: 4 of 5 independent signal types, against 3
Where they differ
1 dimension identical: Maintenance 20.0 · Full evidence table
An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Bifrost and LiteLLM, two LLM Gateways & Infra projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.
Full evidence
| Signal | Bifrostmaximhq/bifrost | LiteLLMBerriAI/litellm |
|---|---|---|
| HVTrust score | 89.9 | 78.1 |
| Evidence grade | A | B |
| Coverage grade | B | A |
| Overall rank | #27 | #208 |
| Rank in LLM Gateways & Infra | #1 | #4 |
| GitHub stars | 9.3k | 62.6k |
| Last updated | today | today |
| Build provenance | Yes | No |
| OSSF Scorecard | 7.3 / 10 | 5.9 / 10 |
| License | Apache-2.0 | NOASSERTION |
| Downloads | 1k/wk | 23.1M/wk |
| Trust dimensions (points earned) | ||
| Safety / integrity / 25 | 21.5 | 12.4 |
| Identity & provenance / 18 | 18.0 | 10.8 |
| Transparency / 17 | 14.7 | 13.5 |
| Maintenance / 20 | 20.0 | 20.0 |
| Adoption / 20 | 13.5 | 20.0 |
| Runtime capability surface (full matrix) | ||
| MCP server | Declared | Implemented |
| External providers | — | 7 — Amazon Bedrock, Anthropic, Google Gemini, … |
| Requires API keys | No | Yes |
| Plugin surface | plugins | plugins |
| Provenance drift | Match | Match |
How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption, scaled by an evidence-confidence factor. Grade bands: A ≥ 80, B ≥ 65, C ≥ 50, D < 50. Signals refresh daily. Full methodology v4.4 →