Snippets AI vs LangSmith vs Opik: What Each One Actually Solves

There’s no shortage of tools for working with LLMs, but let’s be honest – most of them blur together unless you know what you’re looking for. Snippets AI, LangSmith, and Opik might get lumped into the same category, but they’re built for very different stages of your workflow. 

This isn’t about picking a winner. It’s about figuring out which layer you’re in – prompt building, debugging, or monitoring – and choosing the tool that saves you the most time there. Let’s break it down.

Snippets AI: Prompt Workflows Without the Clutter

We built Snippets AI because we were tired of searching for prompts buried in docs, random chat logs, or half-named files. Prompt work shouldn’t be a copy-paste guessing game. It should feel smooth, organized, and accessible across everything you touch.

Here’s what we focus on:

• Instant prompt access inside any app (with a simple shortcut).
• Version control, tags, and context packs to keep variations organized.
• Shared workspaces for teams, with role-based permissions.
• Multi-model support across ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and more.
• Chaining and agent support using webhooks and custom functions.
• Sync across macOS, Windows, and Linux without friction.

The goal? Make prompt iteration fast and structured, whether you’re working solo or in a team.

We’re not trying to be an eval platform or a tracing system. We stay in our lane: helping you get the best prompts into the right place, without wasting time.

LangSmith: When You Want to See What Your LLM Is Really Doing

LangSmith picks up where prompt editors stop. Once your LLM app is actually running (or about to run), you’ll want more than intuition. You’ll want a way to see what’s happening under the hood.

LangSmith is built for that middle layer: the debug and evaluation phase. It helps developers and researchers understand, compare, and score how their LLM chains behave.

What it offers:

• Tracing with detailed inputs, outputs, token counts, and latency.
• Custom evaluators to measure accuracy, hallucination, helpfulness, etc.
• Dataset versioning for structured testing across prompt changes.
• Side-by-side experiment comparisons.
• Built-in support for LangChain and LangGraph pipelines.

One standout here is the depth of inspection. You’re not just seeing input and output – you’re getting full trace visibility, including intermediate steps, retries, and custom metadata.

LangSmith feels most at home for engineers who treat prompt design like real development work. It’s not plug-and-play, but if you invest in the setup, you get data-backed insights instead of gut checks.

Opik: Evaluation and Observability Across Frameworks

Opik is the most flexible of the three, and also the most infrastructure-oriented. It’s open-source, framework-agnostic, and designed to work at scale with production-ready observability features.

Unlike LangSmith, which leans heavily into LangChain, Opik supports a wide range of frameworks including LlamaIndex, Ollama, Predibase, CrewAI, and more.

Where Opik stands out:

• Fully open-source with local or Kubernetes deployment.
• Pytest integration for test-driven LLM development.
• Rich set of built-in and custom evaluation metrics (including hallucination detection).
• Thread-level evaluation for multi-turn conversations.
• Agent execution tracking.
• Human feedback support and prompt-level annotations.
• Built-in guardrails for PII detection and safety compliance.

Opik can also run prompt optimizers to improve prompt quality automatically, which is a powerful option if you’re managing a large prompt library or multiple agents.

For teams that want control, extensibility, and infrastructure flexibility, Opik is a strong fit. It’s especially good for people who want to integrate evaluation deeply into their CI/CD pipelines.

Feature Comparison: What These Tools Actually Offer and Don’t

If you’re comparing Snippets AI, LangSmith, and Opik side by side, it’s not just about whether a feature exists. It’s about what it actually helps you do, and when it matters. This table breaks down each tool’s core capabilities with just enough context to help you make a smarter call.

Feature	Snippets AI	LangSmith	Opik
Prompt versioning	Built-in version control with tagging and history across prompts and libraries	Dataset-linked prompt comparisons for traceable evals	Not the focus; prompt structure handled externally
Multi-model support	Works across ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, etc. with no extra setup	Primarily tied to LangChain and OpenAI APIs	Supports multiple LLM providers via integrations (OpenAI, Ollama, Predibase, etc.)
Evaluation tools	Not included by design (focused on writing)	Full suite: custom evaluators, metrics for hallucination, helpfulness, etc.	Advanced metrics: heuristic, LLM-based, custom scoring, thread-level evaluation
Agent tracing	Visual chaining via HTTP/webhooks, built for structured flows	Full trace visibility (inputs, outputs, retries, latency) in LangChain agents	Broad framework support: LangChain, LlamaIndex, CrewAI, etc., with deep span-level detail
Real-time observability	No monitoring tools (not built for production)	Limited observability features during dev/testing	Built for live monitoring with alerts, latency tracking, token usage, and compliance flags
Human feedback support	Users and teams can leave notes, revisions, and prompt-level comments	Manual annotation during eval workflows	Supports review/feedback loops on traces and threaded conversations
Prompt optimization	Not included	Requires manual tweaking and testing	Offers automated prompt refinement using built-in optimization algorithms
Self-hosting	Cloud-first, desktop sync available	Docker/Kubernetes deployment possible for private hosting	Full local or Kubernetes-based self-hosting with optional managed support
Guardrails (e.g., PII filters)	Not applicable (writing environment only)	Not built-in	Native guardrails to detect PII, block unsafe outputs, and support compliance workflows
LangChain integration	Works alongside LangChain but not dependent on it	Native integration with LangChain and LangGraph	Integrates with LangChain but also supports non-LangChain tools
Open-source	Proprietary with free forever plan	Closed-source, commercial product	Fully open-source, community-driven, with GitHub access and extensibility

When to Use Which (And Why You Might Use All Three)

These three tools aren’t competitors. They’re coworkers. Each one is built for a different part of the LLM lifecycle, and when you understand how they slot in, things stop feeling fragmented. Instead of trying to force one tool to do everything, the smarter approach is to use each one where it shines.

Snippets AI: When Prompt Chaos Is Slowing You Down

Snippets AI is your workspace for prompts. It’s the tool to reach for when your prompt collection is growing fast and starting to fall apart. Whether you’re working alone or in a team, the goal is the same: keep everything structured, accessible, and versioned so you’re not copy-pasting from a graveyard of Google Docs.

Use Snippets AI when:

• You’re constantly hunting down that “one prompt that worked” from last week.
• You’re switching between ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and other models and want a single prompt hub that works everywhere.
• Your team is stepping on each other’s toes, overwriting prompt edits or using outdated versions.
• You’re building prompt-based agents and want to chain them without rolling your own backend or custom infrastructure.

In our experience, once prompts become more than one-liners, managing them in docs or code just doesn’t scale. Snippets AI steps in right there.

LangSmith: When You’re Debugging, Comparing, or Running Real Tests

LangSmith lives in the dev-and-test layer. If you’re doing more than casual prompting, like building agents, running multi-step chains, or trying to tune behaviors, it helps you see what’s actually happening inside the black box.

Use LangSmith when:

• You need detailed traces for each model call, including retries, inputs, and outputs.
• You’re testing multiple prompt or model variations and need a clean way to compare them.
• You’re already using LangChain or LangGraph and want native integrations.
• Your prompt logic is complex enough that one-off testing isn’t cutting it – you need structured evaluation and real metrics.

LangSmith is especially helpful if you’re running side-by-side experiments or deploying LLM-powered features in apps where accuracy, helpfulness, or hallucination rates actually matter.

Opik: When You Need Deep Observability, Flexibility, or Self-Hosting

Opik is built for teams who want full control over how they monitor, evaluate, and scale LLM applications, especially outside the LangChain bubble. It plays well with many frameworks and is designed to be customized, hosted locally, or extended as needed.

Use Opik when:

• You want to self-host the full LLM observability stack and manage your own infrastructure.
• You’re working across a mix of LLM frameworks and need consistent tracing and evaluation.
• You need advanced metrics, custom scoring, or automated prompt optimization built in.
• You care about open-source tooling, contributor-driven development, and avoiding vendor lock-in.
• You’re building production-grade pipelines and need safety features like guardrails for PII detection and content moderation.

Opik is especially strong for teams with a DevOps mindset who want to wire up tracing and evaluation directly into CI/CD pipelines, or organizations with compliance and privacy needs that require internal hosting.

Why You Might Want All Three

You don’t need to pick a favorite here. In fact, many serious teams end up using two or even all three tools, with little to no overlap or conflict.

A typical setup might look like this:

• Snippets AI handles prompt creation and reuse, keeping everything fast and organized.
• LangSmith is used during development to test, trace, and evaluate how well those prompts actually perform in chains or datasets.
• Opik runs in staging or production to monitor model behavior, detect hallucinations, and provide observability across a broader architecture.

They complement each other because they’re not solving the same problem. When used intentionally, they form a clean, efficient LLM workflow – from writing prompts, to testing them, to watching them run live.

Don’t Get Distracted by Dashboards

One of the quickest ways to waste time in the LLM tooling space is by picking based on flash rather than function. It’s easy to be impressed by sleek interfaces or a dense stack of features, but that doesn’t mean the tool actually solves your problem. A great-looking trace viewer won’t help much if your real bottleneck is prompt management. And no amount of prompt organization will fix brittle logic in your LangChain pipeline.

The better way to choose is to work backwards from the actual pain. What’s slowing you down? Maybe your prompts are scattered and version control is a mess. Maybe your app works, but no one knows why one version behaves differently than the next. Or maybe things are live, and the first sign of a hallucination is when a user flags it.

The right tool usually reveals itself once you pinpoint what feels fragile or repetitive. Don’t start by asking what the tool does. Ask what’s breaking your workflow, and then look for the one that gets out of the way and quietly fixes it.

Final Thoughts

Snippets AI, LangSmith, and Opik aren’t in competition. They’re teammates in a well-layered LLM development stack.

Snippets AI helps you move faster during prompt creation. LangSmith gives you feedback and traceability before going live. Opik keeps your production systems accountable and flexible across frameworks.

If you’re only using one, you’re probably compensating with spreadsheets, sticky notes, or a lot of extra code. But when these tools work together, they make prompt workflows more reliable, evaluation more scientific, and production monitoring less reactive.

In short, you stop guessing and start shipping with confidence.

FAQ