Registry › Compare › Flyte vs n8n

Flyte vs n8n

n8n leads on trust: 90.4/100 (Grade A) against 72.3/100 (Grade B), a 18.1-point gap. n8n leads on supply-chain integrity and provenance, and rests on broader evidence.

B Flyte 72.3

Type-safe, distributed orchestration of agents, ML pipelines, and real-time inference on your k8s — in pure Python with async/await, also other languages (rust, go and ts)

flyteorg/flyte · #311 overall · #7 Workflow Platforms · coverage B (3/5)

Flyte doesn't lead on any scored dimension in this pair.

A n8n 90.4

Fair-code workflow automation platform with native AI capabilities. Combine visual building with custom code, self-host or cloud, 400+ integrations.

n8n-io/n8n · #21 overall · #1 Workflow Platforms · coverage A (4/5)

Choose n8n if supply-chain integrity and provenance matter most.

+8.7Safety / Integrity: OSSF Scorecard 6.7 against 5.8
+7.2Identity / Provenance: package provenance attested, against none
+3.7Adoption: 280.2M weekly downloads against 163.1k
+0.8Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 6.7 against 5.8

Where they differ

12.2

Safety / Integrityn8n +8.7

20.9

10.8

Identity / Provenancen8n +7.2

18.0

13.4

Transparencyn8n +0.8

14.2

16.3

Adoptionn8n +3.7

20.0

-0.3

Runtime calibrationFlyte +2.3

-2.6

1 dimension identical: Maintenance 19.9 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Flyte and n8n, 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	Flyteflyteorg/flyte	n8nn8n-io/n8n
HVTrust score	72.3	90.4
Evidence grade	B	A
Coverage grade	B	A
Overall rank	#311	#21
Rank in Workflow Platforms	#7	#1
GitHub stars	7.8k	209.4k
Last updated	1d ago	1d ago
Build provenance	No	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	5.8 / 10	6.7 / 10
License	Apache-2.0	NOASSERTION
Downloads	163k/wk	280.2M/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	12.2	20.9
Identity & provenance / 18	10.8	18.0
Transparency / 17	13.4	14.2
Maintenance / 20	19.9	19.9
Adoption / 20	16.3	20.0
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	—	Implemented
External providers	—	6 — Anthropic, OpenAI, Pinecone, …
Requires API keys	No	Yes
Plugin surface	plugins	plugins
Provenance drift	Unknown	Match

Open in the live compare tool → Flyte profile n8n 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 →