Langfuse vs. LangSmith: Comparing LLM Observability Platforms

When a chatbot starts giving bad answers, the instinct is to check the prompt. That works fine for a single LLM call. It stops working when the application is an agent that makes tool calls.

That missing context is what LLM observability platforms try to provide. They're not traditional application monitoring tools. A more traditional tool tells you about latency and error rates. An LLM observability platform tells you which tool call returned a bad result and whether a prompt change improved output quality.

Both Langfuse and LangSmith cover tracing, evaluation, and prompt management, and both released major updates in early 2026. They're not interchangeable, though. The difference comes down to deployment requirements, tech stack, and how your team runs evaluations.

Short answer: Langfuse fits teams that need open-source self-hosting, data control, or a stack outside LangChain. LangSmith fits teams that want a framework-agnostic platform with integrated observability, evaluation, debugging, and production workflows for LLM applications. If neither condition is true, I would look at pricing.

What Are Langfuse and LangSmith?

At a high level, both products make LLM applications observable, testable, and debuggable. Here's what each one is.

Langfuse versus LangSmith platform positioning overview. Image by Author.

What is Langfuse?

Langfuse is an open-source LLM engineering platform that launched in 2023. It covers tracing, prompt management, evaluation (LLM-as-judge, human annotation, and code-based checks), dataset experiments, and cost and latency monitoring. The core open-source product is MIT licensed.

In January 2026, ClickHouse announced a $400 million Series D and acquired Langfuse. Langfuse is now part of ClickHouse, the columnar database that already powered the Langfuse backend. The MIT license and open-source identity were confirmed as unchanged at the time.

Langfuse runs as a managed cloud service with US, EU, and Japan regions, or as a self-hosted open-source instance with no software license cost.

What is LangSmith?

LangSmith is a framework-agnostic observability and evaluation platform built by LangChain Inc., the team behind LangChain, LangGraph, and Deep Agents. The platform is proprietary and closed-source. LangChain raised $125 million at a $1.25 billion valuation in October 2025.

Its main capabilities include tracing across an application run, visual debugging, automated evaluations, production monitoring, and prompt management via Prompt Hub and the Playground. In May 2026, LangChain launched SmithDB, a Rust-based data layer that now handles 100% of LangSmith's US Cloud ingestion. SmithDB is designed for the unique data payloads generated by LLM applications and drops P50 trace tree load to 92 milliseconds and full-text search to 400 milliseconds.

LangSmith is available as a managed cloud service, a bring your own cloud (BYOC) deployment with data in the customer’s VPC, or a self-hosted Enterprise deployment. LangChain also announced that self-hosted LangSmith will support bring-your-own-key (BYOK) for Engine, its in-platform agent to find and fix errors in LLM applications.

Open Source vs. Managed SaaS

The core difference between the two platforms is not "open source versus not open source." The real difference is control and portability on one side, and managed workflows on the other. Langfuse lets you run the stack on your own infrastructure with no licensing cost. LangSmith offers managed cloud, BYOC, and self-hosted deployments, with deep native support for LangChain,  LangGraph, and Deep Agents, but no requirement to use these frameworks.

One update changes how this comparison should be framed: LangSmith now supports OpenTelemetry tracing through the langsmith[otel] package and the LANGSMITH_OTEL_ENABLED=true environment variable. This is one of several ways teams can use LangSmith with non-LangChain applications. 

Here's where the two platforms sit structurally:

The rest of the article unpacks what those differences mean in practice.

Tracing and Observability

Tracing is where the products start to separate. Both capture LLM calls, tool calls, and related metadata, but agent workflows expose the differences faster than simple prompt-response apps do.

Request tracing

Langfuse builds hierarchical traces that capture LLM calls, tool invocations, embeddings, and retrieval steps. You can filter by user, session, cost, latency, or custom metadata. In May 2026, Langfuse added full-text search backed by ClickHouse's native FTS engine, cutting searches that previously took close to 20 seconds to under half a second.

LangSmith captures every LLM call and tool use as an inspectable run tree. With SmithDB now handling all US Cloud ingestion, trace trees load at P50 in 92 milliseconds. LangSmith also includes unsupervised topic clustering, which groups traces by detected theme and gives teams a starting point when they have no idea what's wrong.

Agent workflow visibility

Langfuse added Agent Graphs in November 2025, visualizing execution flow for multi-step agents by inferring graph structure from observation timings and nesting. It works with any instrumented framework, with native LangGraph support included. A Trace Log View was added at the same time, giving a flat stream of agent steps for workflows that loop or branch heavily.

Langfuse agent graph for LangGraph execution. Image by Author.

LangSmith's LangGraph tracing captures every node, edge, and state transition in a run with zero configuration beyond setting an environment variable. LangSmith Studio lets you step through agent execution, inspect state at each node, and replay a trace with a different model or prompt. In a LangGraph application, this gives more context than a generic trace tree.In September 2026, LangSmith released Trajectories, which make traces easier to debug and incorporate into feedback loops with subject matter experts.

LangSmith trace tree for agent workflow. Image by Author.

Production monitoring

For production monitoring, both platforms track latency, token usage, cost, and error rates. LangSmith includes PagerDuty and webhook alerting for production incidents, along with monitoring workflows tied to traces and evaluations. Langfuse includes spend alerts with configurable thresholds. At this level, the monitoring features are similar.

Offline and Online Evaluation

Tracing tells you what happened. Evaluation tells you if it was good. In practice, these tools are more useful when evaluation is part of the workflow, not a pre-launch checklist.

LLM-as-a-judge and code evaluators

Langfuse's LLM-as-judge became fully open-source under MIT in June 2025. Any self-hosted user on v3.65.0 or later gets it without a commercial license. In May 2026, Langfuse shipped Code Evaluators: Python or TypeScript evaluate functions you write directly in the Langfuse UI. These run deterministic checks, such as JSON schema validation, regex validation, or tool argument verification, without token cost or a judge model call.

LangSmith offers configurable LLM-as-judge evaluators with Boolean, Categorical, and Continuous feedback types, plus built-in templates for Security, Safety, and Quality. It also supports few-shot correction, where human-labeled corrections on evaluator outputs feed back as few-shot examples to improve the evaluator's calibration over time.

Datasets, experiments, and human annotation

Offline evaluation works in both platforms through datasets and side-by-side experiment comparison. Langfuse added Score Analytics in November 2025 to measure evaluator alignment across precision, recall, F1, cost, and accuracy. Baseline comparison, also November 2025, lets you flag a specific run as the reference point and surface regressions against it.

Langfuse's GitHub Actions CI/CD integration, released in May 2026 via the langfuse/experiment-action, fails a workflow when experiment scores drop below a threshold. That turns evaluation into a deploy gate instead of a post-release review.

Langfuse evaluation loop with GitHub Actions. Image by Author.

LangSmith's evaluation setup has one billing behavior to note early: evaluators that add feedback to traces may upgrade those traces to extended retention. As I will cover in the pricing section, that changes the cost of evaluation workflows.

Prompt Versioning, Deployment, and A/B Testing

Prompt management here is more than version history. The workflow is: iterate in a sandbox, test against a dataset, promote to production, and roll back cleanly when something breaks.

Langfuse assigns every prompt version a version ID and uses labels like production and staging to control which version is live. Changing a label in the UI is how you deploy or roll back. Prompts are cached client-side by the SDK, so no latency is added to production calls when the SDK fetches the active version. Protected labels let admins restrict which roles can modify the production label, which matters when you have a mix of contributors with different levels of access.

LangSmith manages prompts via Prompt and Context Hub with commit-hash versioning for pinning exact versions programmatically. The Prompt Hub includes a community library that Langfuse does not replicate. A/B testing via dataset experiments is available on both platforms.

In this category, the two products are closer than they are in hosting, pricing, or framework setup.

Langfuse vs. LangSmith for Agent Applications

Agents drove much of the feature work on both platforms over the past year. Where the agent is built matters here.

Langfuse surfaces available tools, highlights which tools were called, and shows arguments and call IDs. Expanded observation types distinguish tool calls, embeddings, and guardrail calls in the trace view. As I mentioned earlier, Code Evaluators can also verify tool arguments against a schema. The MCP server expanded in May 2026 to cover 15 tool categories, so agents in Claude Code, Cursor, or OpenAI Codex can query Langfuse data programmatically.

The LangGraph point from the tracing section shows up again here. LangSmith's agent support includes state inspection at every node, trace replay with alternative models, and LangSmith Studio for visual step-through debugging. The Monte Carlo engineering team, which runs a production system involving hundreds of sub-agents, cited this zero-setup LangGraph integration as a key reason they chose it.

For agents built with CrewAI, Pydantic AI, or other multi-agent frameworks, Langfuse has broader native instrumentation and often needs less manual setup.

Framework and SDK Integrations

Langfuse lists broad integrations across model providers, frameworks, gateways, no-code tools, analytics, and developer tools. Frameworks include LangChain, LangGraph, OpenAI Agents SDK, Pydantic AI, CrewAI, AutoGen, DSPy, Haystack, LlamaIndex, and others. The platform is OpenTelemetry native at the SDK level.

LangSmith's native SDKs cover Python, TypeScript, Go, and Java. Beyond LangChain, LangGraph, and Deep Agents, it works with the OpenAI SDK, Anthropic SDK, Vercel AI SDK, LlamaIndex, custom implementations, and OpenTelemetry. That means it is not a LangChain-only tracing tool.

The practical question is not only whether a framework is supported, since most popular frameworks work with both platforms. It is how much instrumentation you need to write.

Langfuse Open Source vs. LangSmith Enterprise

Self-hosting changes the operational and compliance picture more than most feature categories do.

Langfuse's self-hosting is free under MIT. Docker Compose works for development or evaluation; production deployments usually use Kubernetes with Helm on GKE, EKS, or AKS. The stack includes ClickHouse, PostgreSQL, Redis, and S3-compatible storage, with a recommended minimum VM of 4 cores and 16 GiB RAM. The software license costs nothing, but your team owns the infrastructure and operations. Its paid self-hosted Enterprise Edition adds dedicated support, audit logs, SCIM, and SLAs.

On compliance, Langfuse Cloud holds SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, GDPR, and HIPAA certifications. LangSmith Cloud holds SOC 2 Type II, GDPR, and HIPAA. ISO 27001 is not listed for LangSmith. If your procurement process checks that box, that's a concrete difference.

LangSmith's self-hosting requires an Enterprise contract. There's no open-source, free self-hosting path available. Three deployment models (Cloud, Bring-Your-Own-Cloud (BYOC), and Self-hosted) all sit under the Enterprise umbrella. SmithDB is available for all hosting methods.

Langfuse vs. LangSmith Pricing

The headline prices do not tell the whole story.

Pricing also changes often in this category. The numbers below reflect the official pages I checked in June 2026, but check the current pricing pages before you budget around either platform.

Langfuse pricing

Langfuse Cloud charges by units: one unit equals one trace, one observation, or one score. The formula is Units = Traces + Observations + Scores, so a tool-heavy agent run can cost more than a simple prompt-response trace. The free Hobby plan includes 50,000 units per month, 30-day retention, and two users. Core runs $29/month with 100,000 included units, unlimited users, and 90-day retention. Pro is $199/month with 3-year data access and compliance certifications. Enterprise starts at $2,499/month with custom volume pricing. Overage starts at $8 per 100,000 additional units.

As I mentioned earlier, self-hosted Langfuse has no software license cost. SCIM, audit logs, and enterprise support require a commercial license.

LangSmith pricing

LangSmith charges per seat and per trace. The Developer plan is free with 5,000 traces per month, one seat, and 14-day retention. Plus runs $39 per seat per month with 10,000 base traces included. Base traces have 14-day retention; extended traces keep data for 400 days and cost more. A team of five on Plus pays $195/month in seats before trace overage. Enterprise pricing is custom.

Data retention mechanics

As I mentioned earlier, extended retention kicks in automatically when evaluators add feedback to traces. Read the LangSmith billing documentation on auto-extended retention before setting up evaluation pipelines.

Those details matter because small differences in trace depth, evaluator usage, and retention can change the monthly bill.

Langfuse vs. LangSmith Comparison Table

As I mentioned earlier, the main differences are ownership, framework fit, evaluation workflow, and pricing. The table below compresses those points before the final decision sections.

Mistakes When Choosing an LLM Observability Platform

First thing, in my view: Do not focus only on tracing. Tracing tells you what happened, but evaluation tells you whether the output was good. If you choose based on trace visualization alone, you are using the wrong criterion.

Second thing: Watch the pricing mechanics. As covered above, Langfuse costs grow with trace depth, while LangSmith's extended retention can change the cost of automated evaluation. Run the math before production.

Third, self-hosting does not mean the same thing in both products. The self-hosting section above shows why. If data sovereignty is a hard requirement, that difference may decide the comparison.

Finally, do not decide on framework compatibility alone. Both platforms support multiple application stacks, and stacks change. Deployment requirements and evaluation workflows are harder to swap later.

When to Choose Langfuse

Based on the trade-offs above, Langfuse fits better when:

• Your team wants native integrations for frameworks, such as CrewAI, Pydantic AI, LlamaIndex, or direct API calls to OpenAI or Anthropic.
• Data sovereignty is non-negotiable, and LLM inputs, outputs, and traces need to stay on your own infrastructure.
• Your team wants CI/CD-integrated evaluation with automated regression gates via GitHub Actions.
• You need predictable costs for a growing team, since paid Cloud plans include unlimited users.

When to Choose LangSmith

Based on the same trade-offs, LangSmith fits better when:

• You want a model- and framework-agnostic platform for observability, evaluation, debugging, and production monitoring across LLM applications, with especially deep support for LangChain frameworks.
• Your team wants a managed platform that supports the entire agent improvement loop.
• You want a highly performant database for your trace data that you can deploy on your preferred infrastructure
• Your needs extend beyond observability into LangSmith's broader platform, including evaluation, production monitoring, agent server, and LLM Gateway.
• You want traces, datasets, experiments, online evaluations, human feedback, and production monitoring connected in one workflow.

Conclusion

Langfuse and LangSmith both solve a real problem, and both have changed a lot over the past year. At this point, the trade-off is clear.

The decision is not about which platform has more features. It is the ownership and ecosystem trade-off from earlier. Do you need an open-source path with direct control over your data stack, or do you want a managed platform with integrated observability, evaluation, and production workflows?

One caveat before you decide: both platforms change often. Check the changelogs before you commit.

For related background on the LangChain ecosystem, see our LangChain vs. LangGraph vs. LangSmith vs. LangFlow tutorial.