WARDIN VS LANGSMITH

LangSmith debugs your chain. Wardin governs every call — chain or not — and signs a receipt for each.

If your AI traffic spans raw SDK calls, Claude Code, Cursor, and CI — not just one framework — the governing question is "who can spend what, and can we prove what each call did?", and it has to be answered across all of them. LangSmith is a tracing and evaluation layer purpose-built for LangChain/LangGraph: step-by-step chain and agent debugging, dataset evals, human annotation queues, priced per seat ($39/user/mo). It has no gateway and nothing to enforce in-path — it sits alongside the app, not in front of the provider call. Wardin is provider- and framework-agnostic: it works the same whether the caller is LangChain, a raw SDK, or an agentic client, enforces budget and policy before the provider sees the request, signs an ED25519 hash-chained receipt for every gateway-routed call, and prices at the org/gateway level rather than per developer seat.

FEATURE COMPARISON

Where each product actually stands today.

CAPABILITYWARDINLANGSMITH
In-path budget hard-stopYesNo — no gateway, nothing to enforce in-path
Policy enforcement (model allowlist, prompt-injection guard)Yes — enforced in-pathNo
Framework-agnostic (works for raw SDK calls and agentic clients, not just one framework)Yes — Anthropic, OpenAI, Bedrock, Vertex; any client pointed at the gatewayTightest fit is LangChain/LangGraph-based apps
Deep chain/agent step debugging for a specific frameworkProvider-agnostic trace capture (opt-in, PII-redacted), not chain-step-levelYes — purpose-built for LangChain/LangGraph internals
Dataset-based evals and human annotation queuesGitHub-PR-outcome quality signal (accepted-work-based), earlier stage than LangSmith's eval toolingYes — more mature dataset/annotation workflow
Signed, hash-chained audit receiptsYesNo
Pricing modelFlat, gateway/org-based$39/user/month
WHERE LANGSMITH IS AHEAD

For a team standardized on LangChain/LangGraph, LangSmith's chain-and-agent-step debugging and its dataset and human-annotation workflows are more mature and more purpose-built than anything we offer today — a real, current gap on our side, not a framework difference we can wave off. Where it stays put is the request path: it has no gateway and no in-path enforcement, so it can trace a call that already ran but never stop one, and never sign a record of it.

WHERE WARDIN IS AHEAD

Wardin governs traffic from any client pointed at the gateway, so one budget, one policy set, and one signed evidence chain cover raw SDK calls, Claude Code, Cursor, and CI alike — not a single framework's internals. It enforces budget and policy before the provider is reached and signs an ED25519, hash-chained receipt for every gateway-routed call, and it prices at the org/gateway level rather than $39 per developer seat. LangSmith has no gateway, so it can trace a call but never stop one or sign a record of it.

WHEN TO CHOOSE EACH

Choose LangSmith if you're deep in LangChain/LangGraph and need step-level chain debugging and mature dataset annotation. Choose Wardin when your traffic spans multiple frameworks and clients — raw SDK, Claude Code, Cursor, CI — and the request itself has to be governed: budget stopped, policy enforced, and a signed receipt produced, not just traced. LangSmith shows you inside one framework's calls. Wardin governs every call, whatever made it — and proves it.

See the enforcement — and the signed receipt — not just the pitch.

Point your SDK at one base URL and get budget hard-stops, policy enforcement, and a signed, hash-chained receipt for every call — from the first request.

EARLY ACCESS · NO CREDIT CARD REQUIRED