LangGraph vs CrewAI — Which AI Agent Framework to Use

Pick two agent frameworks off the shortlist and you almost always land on these. LangGraph and CrewAI both let you build multi-step LLM systems, but they start from opposite ends of the design space. One hands you a graph and asks you to wire it. The other hands you a team and asks you to describe the job. Knowing which reflex fits your project saves weeks. For the broader landscape, start with our building AI agents guide.

The core split #

LangGraph: a low-level orchestration library. You model your application as a graph of nodes and edges. Nodes are functions that read and write a shared state object. Edges decide what runs next, and they can branch, loop back, and gate on conditions. Because the graph supports cycles, an agent can retry, reflect, and revise until a condition is met. Execution is durable, so a long-running run can pause, wait on a human, and resume later without losing its place.

CrewAI: a high-level, role-based framework. You define agents by role, goal, and backstory, hand them tasks, and assemble them into a crew. The crew runs the tasks sequentially or hierarchically, and agents can delegate to one another. You describe intent in plain language and let the framework handle the plumbing. It is fast to stand up and reads almost like a project brief.

Put simply: LangGraph gives you control, CrewAI gives you speed.

Mental models #

Think of LangGraph as a state machine you author by hand. There is a typed state that flows through the system, and you are explicit about every transition. Nothing happens that you did not draw an edge for. That explicitness is the point. When a run misbehaves, you can point at the exact node and the exact state that produced it.

Think of CrewAI as a team you manage. You are less concerned with control flow and more with who does what. A researcher gathers, a writer drafts, an editor reviews. The framework decides much of the choreography for you based on task order and delegation. You trade fine-grained control for a shorter path to a working prototype.

Control versus ease of use #

This is the real axis of the decision.

LangGraph asks more of you up front. You define the state schema, write the node functions, and connect them with conditional edges. In return you get deterministic, inspectable control flow, which matters when a workflow has real branching logic or must not run off the rails.

CrewAI asks less. A useful crew can be a couple dozen lines. The cost is that the orchestration is more opaque. When you need to intervene in exactly how agents hand off or when a loop should terminate, you are working against the framework's defaults rather than with primitives built for it.

State management #

LangGraph makes state a first-class citizen. You declare a schema, typically a TypedDict, and each node returns partial updates that get merged in. Reducers control how updates combine, so you can append to a message list or overwrite a field intentionally. This shared, explicit state is what makes cycles and resumability tractable.

CrewAI passes context between tasks more implicitly. Outputs from one task feed the next, and agents share context through the crew. It works well for linear pipelines. For complex state that many steps read and mutate in non-linear ways, LangGraph's model is easier to reason about.

Streaming and human-in-the-loop #

Both stream. LangGraph exposes streaming of tokens, node outputs, and state updates, which is handy for showing progress in a UI. Its standout feature is durable human-in-the-loop: the graph can interrupt before or after a node, surface state to a person, wait indefinitely, and resume on approval. That pattern is built in rather than bolted on.

CrewAI supports human input on tasks and can pause for feedback, but the durable, checkpoint-and-resume story is where LangGraph pulls ahead for long-running or approval-gated work.

Production readiness and observability #

LangGraph pairs with LangSmith for tracing, evaluation, and monitoring. You see every node execution, every state transition, and every model call in one timeline, which shortens debugging considerably. There is also a managed platform for deploying and scaling long-running graphs with persistence.

CrewAI has matured its production tooling too, with execution logging and integrations for observability, plus a hosted offering. For deep, step-level tracing tied directly to your control flow, the LangGraph and LangSmith pairing is the more established path today.

Learning curve #

CrewAI wins on day one. The role-and-task vocabulary is intuitive, and you get a running multi-agent system quickly.

LangGraph has a steeper start. You need to internalize graphs, state, reducers, and conditional edges before the first useful build. The payoff is that the ceiling is higher and the debugging is more predictable once the concepts click.

A LangGraph snippet #

Verify APIs against your current SDK version before shipping.

python.python

from typing import TypedDict
from langgraph.graph import StateGraph, START, END

class State(TypedDict):
topic: str
draft: str

def research(state: State) -> dict:
return {"draft": f"notes on {state['topic']}"}

def write(state: State) -> dict:
return {"draft": state["draft"] + " -> written up"}

builder = StateGraph(State)
builder.add_node("research", research)
builder.add_node("write", write)
builder.add_edge(START, "research")
builder.add_edge("research", "write")
builder.add_edge("write", END)

graph = builder.compile()
result = graph.invoke({"topic": "agent frameworks", "draft": ""})

A CrewAI snippet #

Same caveat: confirm the current API surface.

python.python

from crewai import Agent, Task, Crew, Process

researcher = Agent(
role="Researcher",
goal="Gather facts on {topic}",
backstory="You dig up accurate, current sources.",
)

writer = Agent(
role="Writer",
goal="Turn research into a clear draft",
backstory="You write tight, useful prose.",
)

research_task = Task(description="Research {topic}", agent=researcher,
expected_output="A bullet list of findings")
write_task = Task(description="Write a short article", agent=writer,
expected_output="A finished draft")

crew = Crew(agents=[researcher, writer],
tasks=[research_task, write_task],
process=Process.sequential)

result = crew.kickoff(inputs={"topic": "agent frameworks"})

Notice the shape difference. LangGraph code is about wiring; CrewAI code is about casting a team.

Where they overlap #

Both run multi-agent workflows, both call tools, both integrate with the major model providers, and both can produce a research-then-write pipeline like the ones above. For a simple linear task, either gets you there. The divergence shows up as workflows gain branching, retries, long-running state, and strict control requirements.

How to choose #

Reach for LangGraph when:

Your workflow has real branching, loops, or reflection.

You need durable execution, checkpointing, or human approval gates.

Control flow correctness and step-level observability are non-negotiable.

You expect the system to grow in complexity over time.

Reach for CrewAI when:

You want a working multi-agent prototype this afternoon.

The task is a mostly linear pipeline of clear roles.

Delegation between agents is the natural framing.

Your team prefers describing intent over drawing graphs.

If you are still surveying options, our roundup of the best AI agent frameworks puts these two in wider context.

The call we'd make #

For a quick internal tool, a demo, or a linear content pipeline, start with CrewAI. You will be productive fast and the abstractions will not fight you. For anything customer-facing, anything with approval steps, or anything you expect to maintain and extend for a year, invest in LangGraph. The upfront cost buys you control, resumability, and traceability that are painful to retrofit later.

A pragmatic middle path exists too: prototype in CrewAI to validate the workflow, then rebuild the parts that need durability and control in LangGraph once the shape is clear. Frameworks move fast, so treat every snippet and feature claim here as a starting point and verify against your installed SDK versions before you commit.