Dify vs Flowise
A side-by-side comparison of Dify and Flowise, two Orchestration tools, drawn from Ignaite's continuously-verified listings.
Compared from listings verified as of
Flowise
OrchestrationVisually build AI agents and LLM workflows — drag-and-drop, self-hosted.
View FlowiseAt a glance
| Attribute | Dify | Flowise |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Orchestration | Orchestration |
| Pricing | FREEMIUM | FREEMIUM |
| License (differs) | Proprietary | Open core |
| Deployment | Hybrid | Hybrid |
| Platforms | Web, API | Web, API |
| Model support (differs) | Model-agnostic | Multi-model |
| Vendor (differs) | Dify (LangGenius) | FlowiseAI |
| Capabilities (differs) |
|
|
The honest brief
Dify
Bundles a workflow builder, RAG, and observability into one self-hostable platform spanning hundreds of models.
- Drag-and-drop workflow builder
- RAG + agents + observability in one
- Prototype to production, little glue code
- Provider-agnostic model management
- License is source-available, not OSI
- Visual builder limits complex logic
- Self-host ops overhead
- Cloud tiers needed for scale
Flowise
Drag-and-drop counterpart to code-first frameworks — builds on LangChain/LlamaIndex nodes, self-hosts via npm/Docker.
- Visual, low-code agent builder
- Apache-2.0 core, self-hostable
- Provider-agnostic node ecosystem
- Multi-agent flows on a canvas
- Complex logic outgrows the canvas
- Less control than writing code
- Cloud tier is a separate paid product
When to pick which
Both cover LLM observability, RAG pipeline, and AI app builder.
Pick Dify if you need Workflow orchestration, Agent framework, and MCP server.
- Workflow orchestration (primary capability)
- Agent framework (secondary capability)
- MCP server (secondary capability)
Pick Flowise if you need Multi-agent orchestration and Tool / function calling.
- Multi-agent orchestration (primary capability)
- Tool / function calling (secondary capability)
They also differ on:
- License
- Proprietary · Open core