Dify vs Trigger.dev
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.
Trigger.dev leads on trust — 90.6/100 (Grade A) vs 76.7/100 (Grade B), a 13.9-point gap. Note: Trigger.dev's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage B vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types. Full breakdown below.
| Signal | Difylanggenius/dify | Trigger.devtriggerdotdev/trigger.dev |
|---|---|---|
| HVTrust score | 76.7 | 90.6 |
| Evidence grade | B | A |
| Coverage grade | A | B |
| Overall rank | #68 | #8 |
| Rank in Workflow Platforms | #3 | #2 |
| GitHub stars | 151.3k | 15.9k |
| Last updated | today | today |
| Build provenance | No | Yes |
| OSSF Scorecard | 6.1 / 10 | 7.0 / 10 |
| License | NOASSERTION | Apache-2.0 |
| Downloads | 19.9M/wk | 608k/wk |
| Trust dimensions (points earned) | ||
| Safety / integrity / 25 | 12.6 | 21.2 |
| Identity & provenance / 18 | 10.8 | 18.0 |
| Transparency / 17 | 13.7 | 14.4 |
| Maintenance / 20 | 20.0 | 20.0 |
| Adoption / 20 | 20.0 | 17.8 |
| Runtime capability surface (full matrix) | ||
| MCP server | Declared | Declared |
| External providers | 2 — OpenAI, Postgres | 3 — OpenAI, Postgres, Redis |
| Requires API keys | No | No |
| Plugin surface | marketplace | extensions |
| Provenance drift | Partial | 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 v4.2 →