AI Agent Design: Dify vs LangChain vs Raw API — How to Ch...

AI Agent Design: Dify vs LangChain vs Raw API — How to Choose

When you decide to build an AI agent, the first question is "what do I use?" I've run all three in production. Here's the honest breakdown.

The Short Answer

Dify:       No-code/low-code / prototypes / non-engineer teams
LangChain:  Python / complex chains / OSS ecosystem needed
Raw API:    Production / full control / Flutter + Supabase integration

My project landed on raw API (Anthropic SDK + Deno Edge Function).

When Dify Wins

# Dify workflow design view
[Input] → [LLM Node] → [Condition Branch] → [Tool Node] → [Output]

Dify lets you build flows in a GUI. Its biggest strength: working prototype in 3 days.

✅ Use Dify when:
- Non-engineers need to edit workflows
- You want to test a RAG pipeline fast
- You don't want to manage hosting/infra

❌ Not Dify when:
- You need tight integration with existing code
- Custom logic is complex
- Dify's execution cost is climbing

When LangChain Wins

from langchain.agents import initialize_agent, Tool
from langchain.chat_models import ChatAnthropic

tools = [
    Tool(name="search", func=search_fn, description="Web search"),
    Tool(name="calculator", func=calc_fn, description="Math"),
]

agent = initialize_agent(tools, ChatAnthropic(model="claude-haiku-4-5"), ...)
result = agent.run("What's the weather in Tokyo today?")

LangChain's Python ecosystem is powerful. Rich integrations for Vector Store / Retriever / Memory.

✅ Use LangChain when:
- Building a serious RAG pipeline
- Need to swap between multiple LLMs
- Python-based data pipelines already exist

❌ Not LangChain when:
- Flutter/Dart/Deno is your main stack — bindings are thin
- Simple API calls — overhead is disproportionate

When Raw API Wins (My Choice)

// Deno Edge Function implementation
const response = await fetch('https://api.anthropic.com/v1/messages', {
  method: 'POST',
  headers: {
    'x-api-key': Deno.env.get('ANTHROPIC_API_KEY')!,
    'anthropic-version': '2023-06-01',
    'content-type': 'application/json',
  },
  body: JSON.stringify({
    model: 'claude-haiku-4-5-20251001',
    max_tokens: 1024,
    messages: [{ role: 'user', content: userMessage }],
  }),
});

const data = await response.json();
return data.content[0].text;

Why I chose raw API:

Supabase Edge Function (Deno) is home — no need for Python LangChain bindings
Cost control — switch haiku/sonnet/opus inside business logic
Minimal dependencies — not dragged by library breaking changes
RLS integration — wire directly to Supabase auth.uid()

The Decision Flow

Want to build an AI agent?
  ↓
Non-engineers editing workflows?
  Yes → Dify
  No ↓
Python is your main stack?
  Yes → LangChain
  No ↓
Tight integration with existing stack needed?
  Yes → Raw API
  No → Dify (as prototype)

Tool Use (Function Calling) Pattern

Using Tool Use with raw API:

const tools = [
  {
    name: "get_race_data",
    description: "Fetch horse racing data",
    input_schema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {
        race_id: { type: "string", description: "Race ID" },
        date: { type: "string", description: "Date in YYYY-MM-DD" },
      },
      required: ["race_id"],
    },
  },
];

const response = await fetch('https://api.anthropic.com/v1/messages', {
  method: 'POST',
  headers: { 'x-api-key': API_KEY, 'anthropic-version': '2023-06-01', 'content-type': 'application/json' },
  body: JSON.stringify({
    model: 'claude-sonnet-4-6',
    max_tokens: 2048,
    tools,
    messages: [{ role: 'user', content: 'Predict tomorrow\'s Nakayama races' }],
  }),
});

When Claude decides it should call get_race_data, it returns a tool_use block. Your code handles the dispatch.

Cost Design: Model Switching Strategy

function selectModel(taskType: string): string {
  switch (taskType) {
    case 'simple_qa':      return 'claude-haiku-4-5-20251001';  // $0.00025/1K
    case 'analysis':       return 'claude-sonnet-4-6';           // $0.003/1K
    case 'complex_design': return 'claude-opus-4-7';             // $0.015/1K
    default: return 'claude-haiku-4-5-20251001';
  }
}

My horse racing prediction system uses:

Standard analysis: haiku ($0.00045/prediction)
Top race deep analysis: sonnet
Architecture decisions: opus (session-level only)

Summary

Factor	Dify	LangChain	Raw API
Development speed	◎	○	△
Customizability	△	○	◎
Existing stack integration	△	○	◎
Operational cost	△	○	◎
Non-engineer support	◎	△	✗

For Flutter + Supabase environments, raw API is the right call. Simplicity and control in one package.

The toolchain you choose shapes what you can build. Match it to your stack, not the hype.

推荐订阅源

DEV Community