Home / Directory / AI SaaS tooling / Prompt / app frameworks / LiteLLM
LiteLLM
Open-source AI gateway and LLM proxy (from BerriAI) that puts many model providers behind one OpenAI-compatible API with spend controls, routing, and self-host options.
Platform and AI engineering teams that want a self-hosted LLM gateway with budgets, routing, and one API across many providers.
Teams that only need a prompt playground or red-team eval harness, or buyers who refuse to operate any gateway themselves.
Co-founded by Krrish Dholakia.
Verdict
LiteLLM is a good fit when your real problem is governing many model providers behind one API. The open-source gateway is free to self-host; Enterprise adds SSO, audit, and support sized to request capacity, not a per-token markup. Practitioners like provider coverage and spend controls; prompt evaluation specialists like Promptfoo still complement a gateway instead of replacing it.
Score Breakdown
How LiteLLM scores in the categories that matter to its buyers.
Pricing
LiteLLM publishes an open-source self-host path at $0 and Enterprise quotes on litellm.ai/pricing. Enterprise is sized to gateway request capacity and support needs, not a per-token list. Figures below are USD signals as of September 2026.
| Plan / SKU | Meter | Price (USD) | What stands out |
|---|---|---|---|
| Open Source self-host | n/a | $0 | MIT-licensed gateway; you operate infra |
| Enterprise | annual capacity | Custom quote | SSO, SCIM, audit, SLAs, air-gap options |
| Enterprise trial | 30 days | Trial key | Instant trial path described on site |
| Marketplace / reseller | annual | Custom | AWS Marketplace and reseller routes |
The Field at a Glance
How LiteLLM compares with other Prompt / app frameworks vendors we reviewed, by Overall Score and relative typical engagement cost.
LiteLLM scores 8.0 in prompt/app frameworks, between Portkey (7.9) and PromptLayer (6.9), with Promptfoo (6.7) stronger on eval/red-team. Relative cost is low when you self-host OSS before Enterprise governance.
Compared with …
- LiteLLM vs Portkey 8.0/7.9
- LiteLLM vs PromptLayer 8.0/6.9
Use-case matrix
| Use case | Fit | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Multi-provider LLM gateway | Strong | Core LiteLLM product. |
| Budgets, keys, and spend attribution | Strong | Platform-team focus. |
| Self-host / air-gapped deploy | Strong | OSS + Enterprise air-gap. |
| Prompt eval / red-teaming suite | Mixed | Promptfoo often sharper. |
| Prompt CMS / playground-only | Mixed | PromptLayer overlaps differently. |
| Managed creative video tools | Poor | Wrong subcategory. |
Who it’s for
Good fit
- Platform teams consolidating model access
- Orgs that want hard budgets before spend runs
- Buyers who prefer self-host over a pure SaaS gateway
Poor fit
- Teams that only need prompt evaluation
- Buyers unwilling to operate a gateway
- Creative teams shopping for video tools
Review Excerpts
Below are excerpts from public reviews. Paid reviews and pay-for-play sites such as Clutch were excluded.
“One gateway key across OpenAI, Anthropic, and Bedrock cut the key-spreadsheet chaos and made chargeback possible.”
“Self-host OSS first, then buy Enterprise for SSO, matched how our security team actually approves software.”
“You still operate Postgres, Redis, and upgrades; this is not a fully hands-off SaaS unless you buy a managed path elsewhere.”
“We route cheap tasks to smaller models and keep GPT-class models for hard prompts, with team budgets enforced at the gateway.”
Methodology
This page is an independent evaluation of LiteLLM for buyers comparing options in prompt / app frameworks. AI Industry Reviews accepts no sponsorships, advertising, or pay-for-placement fees. LiteLLM did not pay for this review.
What we scored
The headline number is an Overall Score on a 0-10 scale. Eight criteria fall under it in two groups.
- Buyer outcomes (for prompt / app frameworks)
- Multi-provider gateway coverage
- Spend control & budgets
- Self-host / air-gap readiness
- Enterprise governance extras
- Company & commercial
- Innovation & product leadership
- Project management & communication
- Pricing
- Contract fairness
Pricing measures whether the price looks fair for the value delivered, including packaging and renewal friction that show up in real buying cycles.
Score Composition
| Input | Weight | What it covers |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 40% | A proprietary read of what practitioners say about likes, complaints, and day-to-day use, including public review sites, forums, and private chat rooms. Paid reviews and pay-for-play sites such as Clutch are out of scope. |
| Product | 35% | Hands-on look at screens and workflows. |
| Pricing | 15% | Whether the price looks fair for what you get. |
| Docs & training | 10% | Docs, tutorials, and training material. |
How we balanced the evidence
The Overall Score is the simple average of the eight criteria. Recommendation language follows that score and the fit pattern described above.
Scope
LiteLLM is graded here as prompt / app frameworks. Criteria scores can move as more review volume and product checks are added.