Registry › Compare › Langflow vs Trigger.dev

Langflow vs Trigger.dev

Trigger.dev leads on trust: 87.0/100 (Grade A) against 79.3/100 (Grade B), a 7.7-point gap. Langflow rests on broader evidence; Trigger.dev leads on provenance and supply-chain integrity. Note: Trigger.dev's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage B vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types.

B Langflow 79.3

Langflow is a powerful tool for building and deploying AI-powered agents and workflows.

langflow-ai/langflow · #159 overall · #5 Workflow Platforms · coverage A (4/5)

Choose Langflow if breadth of evidence matters most.

A vs BEvidence coverage: 4 of 5 independent signal types, against 3

A Trigger.dev 87.0

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

triggerdotdev/trigger.dev · #56 overall · #2 Workflow Platforms · coverage B (3/5)

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

+7.2Identity / Provenance: package provenance attested, against none
+3.2Safety / Integrity: OSSF Scorecard 5.8 against 5.7
+0.5Adoption: 1.2M weekly downloads against 8.6k

Where they differ

12.1

Safety / IntegrityTrigger.dev +3.2

15.3

10.8

Identity / ProvenanceTrigger.dev +7.2

18.0

13.3

TransparencyTrigger.dev +0.1

13.4

20.0

MaintenanceLangflow +0.1

19.9

17.7

AdoptionTrigger.dev +0.5

18.2

+5.4

Runtime calibrationLangflow +3.2

+2.2

Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Langflow 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	Langflowlangflow-ai/langflow	Trigger.devtriggerdotdev/trigger.dev
HVTrust score	79.3	87.0
Evidence grade	B	A
Coverage grade	A	B
Overall rank	#159	#56
Rank in Workflow Platforms	#5	#2
GitHub stars	155.5k	16.5k
Last updated	today	1d ago
Build provenance	No	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	5.7 / 10	5.8 / 10
License	MIT	Apache-2.0
Downloads	9k/wk	1.2M/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	12.1	15.3
Identity & provenance / 18	10.8	18.0
Transparency / 17	13.3	13.4
Maintenance / 20	20.0	19.9
Adoption / 20	17.7	18.2
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	Implemented
External providers	1 — Postgres	4 — Anthropic, OpenAI, Postgres, …
Requires API keys	No	No
Plugin surface	plugins	extensions
Provenance drift	Match	Match

Open in the live compare tool → Langflow 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 →