Dify vs Langflow
A side-by-side comparison of Dify and Langflow, two Orchestration tools, drawn from Ignaite's continuously-verified listings.
Compared from listings verified as of
At a glance
| Attribute | Dify | Langflow |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Orchestration | Orchestration |
| Pricing | FREEMIUM | FREEMIUM |
| License (differs) | Proprietary | Open core |
| Deployment | Hybrid | Hybrid |
| Platforms | Web, API | Web, API |
| Model support | Model-agnostic | Model-agnostic |
| Vendor (differs) | Dify (LangGenius) | DataStax |
| 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
Langflow
A visual drag-and-drop canvas (vs code-first frameworks) for building agents and RAG, with Python under each node and self-host or cloud deployment.
- Visual, low-code flow builder
- Python-extensible nodes
- Self-host or managed cloud
- Export flows as APIs or MCP servers
- Complex flows get unwieldy visually
- Less granular than pure-code frameworks
- Still maturing post-acquisition
When to pick which
Both cover Workflow orchestration, Agent framework, MCP server, RAG pipeline, and 1 more.
Pick Dify if you need LLM observability.
- LLM observability (secondary capability)
Pick Langflow if you need Tool / function calling.
- Tool / function calling (secondary capability)
Dify leans on Workflow orchestration as a headline capability; Langflow treats it as secondary.
- Workflow orchestration (primary capability)
They also differ on:
- License
- Proprietary · Open core