Headroom vs LiteLLM
Headroom leads on trust: 89.3/100 (Grade A) against 78.3/100 (Grade B), a 11.0-point gap. Headroom leads on supply-chain integrity and provenance; LiteLLM leads on adoption and rests on broader evidence. Note: Headroom's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage B vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types.
Compress tool outputs, logs, files, and RAG chunks before they reach the LLM. 20% fewer tokens for coding agents, 60-95% fewer tokens for JSON, same answers. Library, proxy, MCP server.
Choose Headroom if supply-chain integrity and provenance matter most.
- +8.1Safety / Integrity: OSSF Scorecard 6.5 against 6.0
- +7.2Identity / Provenance: package provenance attested, against none
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.
- +1.5Adoption: 22.8M weekly downloads against 113.6k
- 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 Headroom 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 | Headroomheadroomlabs-ai/headroom | LiteLLMBerriAI/litellm |
|---|---|---|
| HVTrust score | 89.3 | 78.3 |
| Evidence grade | A | B |
| Coverage grade | B | A |
| Overall rank | #31 | #201 |
| Rank in LLM Gateways & Infra | #1 | #4 |
| GitHub stars | 77.2k | 61.7k |
| Last updated | today | today |
| Build provenance | Yes | No |
| OSSF Scorecard | 6.5 / 10 | 6.0 / 10 |
| License | Apache-2.0 | NOASSERTION |
| Downloads | 114k/wk | 22.8M/wk |
| Trust dimensions (points earned) | ||
| Safety / integrity / 25 | 20.6 | 12.5 |
| Identity & provenance / 18 | 18.0 | 10.8 |
| Transparency / 17 | 14.0 | 13.6 |
| Maintenance / 20 | 20.0 | 20.0 |
| Adoption / 20 | 18.5 | 20.0 |
| Runtime capability surface (full matrix) | ||
| MCP server | Implemented | Implemented |
| External providers | 5 — Amazon Bedrock, Anthropic, Multi-provider (LiteLLM), … | 7 — Amazon Bedrock, Anthropic, Google Gemini, … |
| Requires API keys | Yes | Yes |
| Plugin surface | plugins | plugins |
| 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 v4.4 →