Home / Directory / AI SaaS tooling / Compared / LiteLLM vs PromptLayer
LiteLLM vs PromptLayer
LiteLLM and PromptLayer are tools for teams building on large language models, which sit between an app and model providers such as OpenAI and Anthropic and keep track of the requests. Our editors read both companies' own sites, then read what AI and platform engineers say about the two tools in public reviews, community boards and chat forums. The table below compares price, limits and features.
| What buyers compare | LiteLLM | PromptLayer |
|---|---|---|
| Price per monthSources 3, 4 | Open-source gateway: free to self-host. Enterprise: quote | Free. Pro $49. Team $500. Enterprise: quote |
| Free plan or trialSources 3, 4 | Open source. 30-day Enterprise trial key | Free plan: 5 users, 2,500 requests per month |
| How usage is countedSources 3, 4 | Not published | Requests per month: 2,500 Free and Pro, 100,000+ Team. Overage $0.003 per request on Pro, $0.002 on Team |
| Seats and usersSources 3, 4 | Not published | 5 users on Free and Pro, 25 on Team, unlimited on Enterprise |
| Integrations and featuresSources 3, 4 | One OpenAI-format API for 100+ LLMs. Virtual keys, budgets, rate limits and spend by key, user, team and org | Prompt registry, playground, evals and agent nodes. Webhooks from Team |
| Security and deploymentSources 3, 4 | Enterprise: SSO, SCIM, audit logs, air-gapped deployment, SOC 2 Type 2 and ISO 27001 | Enterprise: self-hosted or single-tenant, SSO, role-based access, deployment approvals, HIPAA with a BAA |
| Best forSources 1, 2 | Platform and AI engineering teams that want a self-hosted LLM gateway with budgets, routing, and one API across many providers | Product teams that change prompts often and want a log and version history beside the app |
List prices in US dollars per month before tax, as published on each vendor's site on October 16, 2026, billed monthly unless the cell says otherwise. "Quote" means the vendor sets the price through its sales team. A green check marks a row where the published data shows a clear edge.
Which one fits
LiteLLM routes requests to many model providers, while PromptLayer manages and logs the prompts themselves.
Choose LiteLLM if
- You want to run the gateway in your own infrastructure. LiteLLM is open source and self-hosted.
- You need budgets and rate limits per key, team or user across many model providers.
- You work offline or under strict data rules. Enterprise supports air-gapped deployment.
Choose PromptLayer if
- Your product team edits prompts often and wants version history and logs beside the app.
- You want non-engineers to change prompts. PromptLayer keeps prompts in a registry with a playground.
- You want to start free. The free plan covers five users and 2,500 requests per month.
What buyers say
“LiteLLM is better as the multi-provider proxy. PromptLayer is better when the pain is prompt versions and logging, not routing every model behind one OpenAI-compatible endpoint.”
tikkun · HN · · source
“PromptLayer for prompt ops history. LiteLLM when engineers just need failover and provider swap without another prompt IDE.”
treefarmer · HN · · source
“LiteLLM is the one API engineers put in front of every model provider, with budgets and rate limits. PromptLayer is where our product managers edit prompts, so the two do different jobs.”
Engineering director, B2B SaaS company
Representative buyer view
Verdict
Choose LiteLLM (8.0 out of 10, Recommend) if your engineers need one self-hosted API in front of many model providers, with budgets and rate limits. Choose PromptLayer (6.9 out of 10, Conditional recommend) if product people change prompts often and need a prompt registry, version history and logs, with a free plan for five users.
Methodology
We read the LiteLLM and PromptLayer pricing pages and product sites on October 16, 2026 and recorded every published price, limit and plan feature. A cell reads "Not published" when the vendor does not state that detail on its site, and rows where neither vendor publishes anything were left out.
Scores, best-fit notes and buyer quotes come from the AIR reviews of each product, which weight practitioner reviews at 40%, hands-on product checks at 35%, pricing at 15% and docs at 10%. Paid reviews and pay-for-play sites are excluded. Quotes marked Representative buyer view are written by AIR to reflect buyer feedback and carry no source link.