Registry › Compare › Dify vs Trigger.dev

Dify vs Trigger.dev

Trigger.dev leads on trust: 87.2/100 (Grade A) against 76.8/100 (Grade B), a 10.4-point gap. Dify leads on adoption and rests on broader evidence; Trigger.dev leads on supply-chain integrity and provenance. Note: Trigger.dev's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage B vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types.

B Dify 76.8

Build Agentic workflows, RAG pipelines, with rich AI model and tool support on one collaborative workspace. Deploy on cloud, VPC, or self-hosted, so teams move from prototype to production without rebuilding the stack.

langgenius/dify · #230 overall · #6 Workflow Platforms · coverage A (4/5)

Choose Dify if adoption matters most.

+1.5Adoption: 25.6M weekly downloads against 1.8M
A vs BEvidence coverage: 4 of 5 independent signal types, against 3

A Trigger.dev 87.2

Trigger.dev – build and deploy durable AI agents and workflows

triggerdotdev/trigger.dev · #72 overall · #2 Workflow Platforms · coverage B (3/5)

Choose Trigger.dev if supply-chain integrity and provenance matter most.

+7.2Identity / Provenance: package provenance attested, against none
+3.7Safety / Integrity: OSSF Scorecard 6.0 against 5.2
+0.7Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 6.0 against 5.2

Where they differ

11.5

Safety / IntegrityTrigger.dev +3.7

15.2

10.8

Identity / ProvenanceTrigger.dev +7.2

18.0

12.9

TransparencyTrigger.dev +0.7

13.6

19.9

MaintenanceDify +0.1

19.8

20.0

AdoptionDify +1.5

18.5

+1.7

Runtime calibrationTrigger.dev +0.4

+2.1

Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Dify and Trigger.dev, two Workflow Platforms projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.

Full evidence

Signal	Difylanggenius/dify	Trigger.devtriggerdotdev/trigger.dev
HVTrust score	76.8	87.2
Evidence grade	B	A
Coverage grade	A	B
Overall rank	#230	#72
Rank in Workflow Platforms	#6	#2
GitHub stars	160.3k	16.7k
Last updated	1d ago	3d ago
Build provenance	No	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	5.2 / 10	6.0 / 10
License	NOASSERTION	Apache-2.0
Downloads	25.6M/wk	1.8M/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	11.5	15.2
Identity & provenance / 18	10.8	18.0
Transparency / 17	12.9	13.6
Maintenance / 20	19.9	19.8
Adoption / 20	20.0	18.5
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Declared	Implemented
External providers	—	4 — Anthropic, OpenAI, Postgres, …
Requires API keys	No	No
Plugin surface	plugins	extensions
Provenance drift	Partial	Match

Open in the live compare tool → Dify profile Trigger.dev profile More Workflow Platforms →

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 →