Registry › Compare › Langfuse vs Opik

Langfuse vs Opik

Both are Grade B and 0.4 points apart, so choose on what you weigh most. Langfuse leads on transparency and adoption; Opik leads on provenance.

B Langfuse 79.1

🪢 Open source agent evals & observability: Trace, evaluate, and improve LLM applications with one open platform.

langfuse/langfuse · #183 overall · #6 Observability & Evaluation · coverage A (4/5)

Choose Langfuse if transparency and adoption matter most.

+5.9Transparency
+1.9Adoption: 8.8M weekly downloads against 521k
+1.5Safety / Integrity: 98% of recent commits signed, against 93%

B Opik 78.7

Debug, evaluate, and monitor your LLM applications, RAG systems, and agentic workflows with comprehensive tracing, automated evaluations, and production-ready dashboards.

comet-ml/opik · #195 overall · #7 Observability & Evaluation · coverage A (4/5)

Choose Opik if provenance matters most.

+7.2Identity / Provenance: package provenance attested, against none

Where they differ

13.7

Safety / IntegrityLangfuse +1.5

12.2

10.8

Identity / ProvenanceOpik +7.2

18.0

14.4

TransparencyLangfuse +5.9

8.5

20.0

AdoptionLangfuse +1.9

18.1

+0.2

Runtime calibrationOpik +1.7

+1.9

1 dimension identical: Maintenance 20.0 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Langfuse and Opik, two Observability & Evaluation projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.

Full evidence

Signal	Langfuselangfuse/langfuse	Opikcomet-ml/opik
HVTrust score	79.1	78.7
Evidence grade	B	B
Coverage grade	A	A
Overall rank	#183	#195
Rank in Observability & Evaluation	#6	#7
GitHub stars	36.0k	22.7k
Last updated	today	today
Build provenance	No	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	7.0 / 10	—
License	NOASSERTION	Apache-2.0
Downloads	8.8M/wk	521k/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	13.7	12.2
Identity & provenance / 18	10.8	18.0
Transparency / 17	14.4	8.5
Maintenance / 20	20.0	20.0
Adoption / 20	20.0	18.1
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	Implemented
External providers	2 — Anthropic, OpenAI	4 — Amazon Bedrock, Anthropic, Multi-provider (LiteLLM), …
Requires API keys	Yes	No
Plugin surface	plugins	extensions
Provenance drift	Unknown	Partial

Open in the live compare tool → Langfuse profile Opik profile More Observability & Evaluation →

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 →