TrueFoundry vs LiteLLM

LiteLLM is free to license, not free to operate. TrueFoundry delivers enterprise governance, guardrails across the full agent lifecycle, and a single platform your team does not have to assemble.

Book your personalised TrueFoundry AI Gateway demo

Tell us where you are today and we'll map the gateway to your use case.

  • 20-min personalized walkthrough
  • SOC 2 / HIPAA / GDPR ready
  • No commitment

By continuing, you agree to be contacted about TrueFoundry's AI Gateway.

35-50% TCO reduction
3-5ms Gateway overhead
99.9% Uptime SLA
9.9/10 G2 rating

A Proxy Is Not a Governance Layer

LiteLLM is a fast, code-first way to unify LLM providers. What an enterprise needs on top of that routing is either gated behind a paid tier, left as infrastructure for your team to run, or absent from the agent path altogether.

Enterprise Controls Sit Behind a Paid Tier

SSO, SCIM, audit logs, per-key guardrail control and secrets detection all require a LiteLLM Enterprise licence. TrueFoundry treats these as core enterprise capabilities rather than an upgrade path.

Nothing Inspects What a Tool Returns

LiteLLM runs guardrails before and during an MCP tool call. There is no documented hook after the tool returns, and nothing holds a sensitive call for human approval. TrueFoundry does both.

The Gateway Is Yours to Operate

A production deployment means the proxy, a Postgres database, and Redis as soon as you run more than one instance. TrueFoundry ships as one Helm chart, fully supported.

Feature Comparison

What an Enterprise Evaluation Actually Tests

Both platforms route model traffic well. The differences appear in identity, guardrails on the agent path, cost enforcement, and what your team has to operate.

Capability
TrueFoundry logo TrueFoundry
Litellm logo LiteLLM
The basics: what both platforms give you
Unified multi-provider API
1,600+ models behind one API
Broad provider catalog
OpenAI-compatible interface
No lock-in
No lock-in
Self-hosted deployment
VPC, on-prem and air-gapped
Docker or Helm
Fallbacks and load balancing
Latency-based routing with SLA cutoffs
Router with fallbacks and retries
Routing to self-hosted endpoints
Native
Supported
MCP server registry with tool-level access control
Tool-level RBAC
Per key, team and organization
Enterprise identity and access control
SSO (OIDC, SAML)
Included
Requires LiteLLM Enterprise
SCIM provisioning
Included
Requires a premium license
Audit logs with retention policy
Included
Requires LiteLLM Enterprise
Guardrail control per API key
Included
Requires LiteLLM Enterprise
Secrets detection and redaction
Built in, with no external API calls
Requires LiteLLM Enterprise
Workload isolation
Kubernetes namespace boundaries, with per-tenant compute planes
Logical, through virtual keys and teams
Compliance posture
SOC 2 Type II certified, HIPAA and GDPR compliant
Not stated in product documentation
Guardrails across the agent lifecycle
Guardrails on LLM input and output
Sync hooks on both
pre_call, during_call and post_call
Guardrails before an MCP tool call
MCP Pre Tool hook, the tool does not run
pre_mcp_call and during_mcp_call
Guardrails after a tool returns
MCP Post Tool hook, the result is withheld from the model
No post-tool hook documented
Human approval gate on a sensitive tool
The call is held until a named person decides
Not documented
Policy engine
Cedar and OPA policies
Not documented
Cost control and enforcement
Budget checked before the provider call
Requests are rejected at the limit
Cost is reserved before the request
Durability of the spend counter
Enforced from gateway state
A restarted Redis counter can read lower than recorded spend, allowing spend past max_budget until corrected
Limits when the shared store is unavailable
Enforced in-memory on the hot path
Each instance enforces independently, up to N times the limit across N instances
Attribution by team, user, model and application
Full
Keys, teams, tags and end users
Cost tracking for self-hosted and private-rate models
Private cost rates, including on-prem
Custom pricing configured per model
What your team operates
Systems to run in production
One Helm chart
Proxy plus Postgres, and Redis once you run more than one instance
Published per-pod benchmark
250 RPS on 1 vCPU and 1 GB, under 5ms overhead
Not published in documentation
Configuration propagation across pods
Distributed from the control plane
No cross-pod push, a pod converges within one polling interval
Prompt management
Versioning with a side-by-side diff view
Versioning and rollback, labelled Beta
Model deployment, training and fine-tuning
Same platform, a config change rather than a migration
Out of scope, routing only
Production support
24x7 Slack and on-call engineers, dedicated AM
Community, with Enterprise support available
Production challenges

Why teams look for a LiteLLM alternative

LiteLLM serves early-stage routing well. These are the limits teams encounter when workloads move into regulated, production-scale environments.

01

The controls your security team asks for are gated

SSO, SCIM, audit logs, per-key guardrail control and secrets detection each require a LiteLLM Enterprise licence. The capabilities procurement asks about first sit behind the paid tier.

02

Nothing inspects what a tool returns

MCP guardrails run before and during a tool call. There is no documented hook after the tool returns, so data coming back from a tool reaches the model uninspected.

03

No approval gate on a destructive tool call

Nothing in the documentation holds a sensitive call while a person reviews it. An agent with valid permissions still acts the moment it decides to, which is why most teams keep agents read-only.

04

Your budget is only as durable as Redis

Cost is reserved before the request, but the spend counter lives in Redis. The documentation notes that a restarted counter can read lower than recorded spend, letting a key spend past its limit until it is corrected.

05

You are operating a proxy, Postgres and Redis

Postgres is required for teams and budgets, and Redis becomes necessary as soon as you run more than one instance. That is three systems with three failure modes, maintained by your platform team.

06

LiteLLM routes to your models, it does not run them

Deployment, training and fine-tuning are outside its scope. The day a workload moves to a private model, you are buying and integrating a second platform.

The fix

How TrueFoundry acts as a painkiller

Where LiteLLM breaks
How TrueFoundry solves it
Business impact
Enterprise controls arrive as a licence negotiation
SSO, SCIM, audit logs, per-key guardrail control and secrets detection are included rather than tiered
Security review proceeds on the deployment you already have, without a mid-evaluation upgrade.
The agent path is governed only up to the tool call
Guardrail hooks fire before the tool runs and again after it returns, with the result withheld from the model when a check fails
Data coming back from a tool is inspected rather than trusted, which is what a security team asks to see.
No human checkpoint on a sensitive action
Tool approval policies hold the call until a named person approves or denies it
Every risky action has an approver and a recorded decision, so agents move beyond read-only pilots.
Your team operates infrastructure instead of building AI
One Helm chart covering gateway, MCP, guardrails and model deployment, with no Postgres or Redis to run alongside it
Platform engineering time returns to AI products rather than to the systems underneath them.
Enforcement depends on a shared counter staying healthy
Limits are enforced in-memory on the request path, with attribution across team, user, model and application
A cache restart does not become a spending incident.
Routing is the ceiling
External API routing and self-hosted model deployment, training and fine-tuning managed from one platform
Moving a workload to a private model is a configuration change rather than a second platform purchase.
Evaluation checklist

Six things to pressure-test before you standardize

Before standardizing on LiteLLM for production workloads, put these to your provider.

1

Price the tier you will actually need

SSO, SCIM, audit logs, per-key guardrail control and secrets detection sit behind the Enterprise licence. Confirm the cost once security has reviewed the deployment, not before.

2

Send a poisoned tool result, not a poisoned prompt

Pre-call checks cover a great deal. Ask to see a guardrail inspect what a tool returns before that data reaches the model, and confirm the hook exists.

3

Ask to see a tool call held for a person

Authorization and approval are not the same thing. An agent with valid credentials and correct permissions can still take an action nobody wanted, and every check will have passed.

4

Restart the cache and watch the budget

Budget reservation works well when the counter is healthy. Ask what happens to enforcement when that shared counter restarts and reloads an older snapshot.

5

Count the systems, not the proxy

A production deployment includes Postgres, Redis and every observability and guardrail integration you have added. Each one is scoped, maintained and reviewed separately.

6

Check the maturity label on anything compliance-critical

Prompt management is labelled Beta. Useful and improving, but worth a backup plan where prompt changes touch a regulated workflow.

How to decide

When to settle and when to scale

Choose TrueFoundry when

  • Security requires SSO, SCIM and audit logs as standard rather than as a licence upgrade
  • Agents take actions that need a guardrail on what a tool returns, and a named approver before they run
  • Enforcement has to hold on the request path rather than depend on a shared counter staying healthy
  • You want one supported platform instead of a proxy, a database and a cache to operate
  • You expect to deploy self-hosted or fine-tuned models alongside provider APIs

LiteLLM might be adequate when

  • You are routing across providers at low to moderate volume with a team that can operate the infrastructure
  • You are in development and experimentation, where enforcement and audit requirements have not yet arrived

Preguntas frecuentes/Objeciones comunes

¿Tenemos que reemplazar a Kong?

No. Kong es una excelente puerta de enlace de API y merece su lugar en su stack. La respuesta práctica es la división del trabajo: Kong permanece en el borde para REST, gRPC y Kafka; una puerta de enlace de IA diseñada específicamente se encarga del tráfico de LLM, MCP y agentes. TrueFoundry se implementa junto a ella.

Kong tiene un plugin OAuth para MCP. ¿No cubre eso la autenticación?

Cubre quién llama a su puerta de enlace, no en nombre de quién actúan sus agentes aguas abajo. Kong valida los tokens entrantes y admite el intercambio de tokens cuando su proveedor de identidad lo ofrece, pero no existe un flujo de consentimiento de código de autorización para proveedores externos. Para que un agente actúe como una persona específica en Slack o GitHub, sus ingenieros deben crear y operar el consentimiento, el almacenamiento de tokens y la actualización.

¿Podemos esperar? Kong se implementa rápidamente.

Algunas carencias están en la hoja de ruta. Dos son decisiones de diseño: la aplicación de aprobaciones se delega al cliente del agente, y la autenticación de herramientas por usuario asume que su proveedor de identidad se encarga de ello. Cerrar cualquiera de estas brechas requiere lo que un proxy basado en fases está diseñado para evitar: un estado que sobreviva a la solicitud. Eso es un nuevo subsistema con estado propio, con su almacenamiento, conmutación por error y tenencia, no un plugin.

Hoy solo hacemos enrutamiento de modelos. ¿Necesitamos esto?

TrueFoundry funciona perfectamente como una capa de enrutamiento ligera con monitorización, medidas de seguridad y control de costes. Pero el enrutamiento es lo más fácil de mover más adelante. Las puertas de aprobación, las credenciales por usuario y el coste a nivel de cadena son lo que obliga a cambiar de plataforma.

¿Qué cambia el primer día?

Nada en su borde. Usted dirige el tráfico de IA a la puerta de enlace de IA y mantiene Kong donde está.
Grey wavy lines on white background, abstract wave pattern with multiple curved lines intersecting smoothly.

Mantenga Kong para las API. Ponga la IA detrás de una puerta de enlace de IA.

El nivel gratuito incluye AI Gateway, MCP Gateway y gestión de prompts.

Pruebe la puerta de enlace de IA gratis
Blank white background with no visible objects or text present.
Hable con un experto
Blank white background with no visible objects or text present.
No se requiere tarjeta de crédito  ·  SOC 2  ·  G2 9.9/10

Resultados reales en TrueFoundry

Por qué las empresas eligen TrueFoundry

NVIDIA logo with green background and white eye-like design symbolizing technology and graphics processing innovation.
Resmed logo with blue, purple, and pink wavy lines beside company name in black text.
Automation Anywhere logo featuring stylized letter A in orange and yellow hues on white background.
Siemens Healthineers company logo
Innovaccer Company Logo
Games 24 seven logo with stylized cube icon and vibrant orange and blue color scheme.

3x

tiempo de obtención de valor más rápido con agentes LLM autónomos

80%

mayor utilización de clústeres de GPU tras la optimización automatizada de agentes

Smiling man with short brown hair standing in front of greenery outdoors.

Aaron Erickson

Fundador, Laboratorio de IA aplicada

TrueFoundry convirtió nuestra flota de GPU en un motor autónomo y autooptimizable, lo que aumentó la utilización en un 80 % y nos ahorró millones en capacidad de cómputo ociosa.

5x

reducción del tiempo para poner en producción la plataforma interna de IA/ML

50%

menor gasto en la nube tras migrar las cargas de trabajo a TrueFoundry

Smiling Asian Indian business professional man in black suit jacket and white collared shirt portrait.

Pratik Agrawal

Director sénior, Ciencia de datos e innovación en IA

TrueFoundry nos ayudó a pasar de la experimentación a la producción en tiempo récord. Lo que habría llevado más de un año se hizo en meses, con una mejor adopción por parte de los desarrolladores.

80%

reducción del tiempo de puesta en producción de modelos

35%

ahorro en costes de la nube en comparación con la configuración anterior de SageMaker

Smiling man with short dark hair and glasses wearing a collared shirt and sweater indoors.

Vibhas Gejji

Ingeniero de ML sénior

Redujimos la carga de DevOps y simplificamos los lanzamientos a producción en todos los equipos. TrueFoundry aceleró la entrega de ML con una infraestructura que escala desde experimentos hasta servicios robustos.

50%

despliegue más rápido de la pila de RAG/agentes

60%

reducción de los costes de mantenimiento para pipelines de RAG/agentes

Smiling man with beard and mustache wearing blue shirt and gray blazer against white background.

Indroneel G.

Líder de procesos inteligentes

TrueFoundry nos ayudó a desplegar una pila RAG completa (incluyendo pipelines, bases de datos vectoriales, API e interfaz de usuario) el doble de rápido y con control total sobre nuestra infraestructura autohospedada.

60 %

despliegues de IA más rápidos

~40-50 %

Reducción efectiva de costes en entornos de desarrollo

Young man with short dark hair and neutral expression in circular frame.

Nilav Ghosh

Director sénior de IA

Con TrueFoundry, redujimos los tiempos de despliegue a más de la mitad y disminuimos los gastos generales de infraestructura mediante una interfaz MLOps unificada, acelerando así la entrega de valor.

<2

semanas para migrar todos los modelos en producción

75 %

reducción en el tiempo de coordinación de ciencia de datos, acelerando las actualizaciones de modelos y el lanzamiento de funcionalidades

Businessman with short dark hair and glasses sitting in office, wearing suit jacket and blue shirt.

Rajat Bansal

CTO

Ahorramos mucho en costes de infraestructura y redujimos el tiempo de coordinación de ciencia de datos en un 75 %. TrueFoundry impulsó la velocidad de despliegue de nuestros modelos en todos los equipos.