Comparison

Langfuse vs Helicone: which LLM observability platform wins in 2026?

Langfuse wins on evals + dataset workflows + open-source self-host. Helicone wins on simplest setup (one proxy URL change) and dashboard polish. Pick Langfuse for full eval pipelines, Helicone for fast monitoring + cost visibility.

At a glance

DimensionLangfuseHelicone
SetupSDK wrap calls or OpenTelemetryChange base URL to proxy (one line)WIN
TracingDetailed multi-step + sessionsWINPer-request logs + sessions
EvalsFirst-class — datasets, scorers, runsWINBasic eval scoring
Datasets / golden setsBuilt-inWINLimited
Prompt managementVersioned prompts + experimentsVersioned prompts
Cost attributionPer-user / session / projectPer-user / API key
Open source / self-hostYes (MIT)WINPartial (self-host beta)
PricingFree tier + usage-based + enterpriseFree tier + usage-based
Best forFull eval / dataset / observability pipelineQuick monitoring + cost visibility

Verdict

Langfuse is the right pick for teams running full evaluation pipelines — datasets, scorers, regression tests, A/B prompt experiments — with open-source self-host as a hard requirement. Helicone is the right pick for teams who want zero-touch monitoring — one URL change adds cost + latency + error dashboards. Many teams use both — Helicone for prod monitoring + cost, Langfuse for dev / eval / prompt iteration.

When to pick which

Pick Langfuse

Eval pipelines, dataset workflows, prompt experiments, open-source self-host.

Pick Helicone

Fastest setup (proxy URL change), cost visibility, monitoring polish.

FAQ

Easiest LLM observability setup?

Helicone — change your OpenAI base URL to the Helicone proxy, done.

Best for evals?

Langfuse — first-class dataset + scorer + experiment workflows.

Self-host?

Langfuse (MIT, full self-host) leads; Helicone has a partial self-host beta.

Last updated: 2026-06-01.