19 posts tagged with "LLMOps comparison"

Every latency number we'd published before this measured one thing: the completion call. But a real request to any of these platforms is usually two round trips — fetch or resolve a stored prompt, then complete it — and most of them were benchmarked against OpenRouter, not the provider whose name is on the model.

So this one measures the full cycle, on real OpenAI billing, across all six platforms plus both of AcruxCore's calling modes — eight paths in one interleaved run. We also ran it four independent times, because a single 100-round run against a live third-party API turned out to not be enough to trust a single number, and that's worth showing rather than hiding.

Helicone is a proxy-first LLM observability tool — you point your API base URL at it and it sits in the request path, which makes it architecturally closer to AcruxCore's own gateway than most competitors in this series. So we built the same prompt — vip-support-triage, a support agent that changes tone for VIP customers and lists their open tickets — on self-hosted Helicone, then tried to run the identical sequence we've run on every platform in this series: create the prompt, send a live call, inspect the trace, build a dataset, and call it from a script. On this self-hosted build, three of those steps hit real, reproducible errors on Helicone's side before we ever got a trace. We're publishing those errors, not routing around them — that's the most useful thing we found.

Opik is Comet's open-source LLM-ops platform, and unlike some competitors we've covered it ships with genuinely no login wall when self-hosted — you docker compose up and you're working inside a real workspace immediately. We built the same prompt — vip-support-triage, a support agent that changes tone for VIP customers and lists their open tickets — on both platforms, then ran the identical sequence on each: create the prompt, version it, send a live call, inspect the trace, build a dataset, run an experiment, and call it from an SDK script.

Arize Phoenix is the OTel-native tracing-and-eval project a lot of teams reach for first, so it deserves a real answer, not a table copied from two docs sites. We built the same prompt — vip-support-triage, a support agent that changes tone for VIP customers and lists their open tickets — on both platforms, then ran the identical sequence on each: create the prompt, version it, send a live call, inspect the trace, build a dataset, run an experiment, and call it from an SDK script.

Langfuse is the LLM-ops platform we get compared to most often, and it deserves a real answer, not a table copied from two docs sites. So we built the same prompt — vip-support-triage, a support agent that changes tone for VIP customers and lists their open tickets — on both platforms, then ran the identical sequence on each: create the prompt, version it, send a live call, inspect the trace, build a dataset, run an experiment, and call it from an SDK script.

Most comparisons of the best LLM observability tools are written from docs and marketing pages. We didn't do that here. We ran ten LLM-ops platforms ourselves — LangSmith, Langfuse, PromptLayer, Arize Phoenix, Opik, MLflow, Helicone, Laminar, and Agenta, plus our own AcruxCore as the baseline — and did the same thing on each one: create a prompt, version it, run it live with a real model key, inspect the resulting trace, and try to build an eval. Then we wrote a small script against each platform's own SDK and ran that too, and timed every one of them against a direct call to the provider.

Most people who search for LLM observability tools want tracing and monitoring, and one section below covers both. Prompt management, evals, guardrails, and tool calling get their own sections too. For open source LLM observability tools that you can self-host, a separate post measures the memory and disk use of seven open source observability tools on one machine.

The previous post compares how LangSmith and AcruxCore trace the same tool-calling agent.

This post compares the code you write when the tool is a function in your own app. LangChain's create_agent runs against the AcruxCore SDK's run_tool_loop. Same tool, same question, same model (openai/gpt-4o-mini via OpenRouter), both run live.

A tool call is the point where an agent stops producing text and calls code or an API. When an agent gives a wrong answer, the first question is usually what the tool returned and how long it took. A trace of the run has to answer that.

We built the same agent twice and ran both live. The two agents use the same tool, the same question and the same model: openai/gpt-4o-mini through OpenRouter. LangSmith traces one run and AcruxCore traces the other. Then we ran both again with streaming.

Every number and every output below comes from those runs. The scripts for both platforms are at the end of the post in full.

If you're building on LLMs, you eventually need four things: prompts you can change without redeploying, a reliable path to model providers, visibility into what each call did, and a way to tell whether a change helped. LangSmith and Acrux Core both address this space from different starting points. This is an honest look at where they overlap and where they differ.