TL;DR
We picked one realistic, multi-step task — “Produce an investment memo on NVDA covering fundamentals, technicals, macro, and a final BUY/SELL/HOLD call with rationale” — and built it four times: once on the Swarms API (HierarchicalSwarm), once on LangGraph (StateGraph), once on CrewAI (Crew + Process.sequential), once on AutoGen (GroupChat + GroupChatManager). Same model (gpt-4.1), same role prompts. The comparison below is illustrative (see the warning above) — it reflects typical, representative differences in code volume and orchestration overhead between the four approaches, not a single certified benchmark run.
The honest read: LangGraph matches Swarms on output quality and is the right tool when you genuinely need conditional graph routing you control yourself. CrewAI has the prettiest docs of the four. But on a sequential analyst-team workflow — which is most multi-agent work in production — the Swarms API ships the same memo in a third of the code and half the cost because the orchestration runs server-side instead of in your Python process.
This guide shows the four implementations side-by-side. Read them and decide.
The Task
The benchmark target is fixed:Produce a one-page investment memo on NVDA that includes:
- A fundamentals section — revenue trajectory, margin profile, FCF, balance sheet, the single most material catalyst over the next two quarters.
- A technicals section — trend regime, key support / resistance levels, momentum (RSI, MACD), volume profile, a near-term price target with stop.
- A macro section — sector positioning vs. the rate regime, FX / commodity sensitivities, policy tailwinds and headwinds, behaviour in a risk-off rotation.
- A final call — BUY / SELL / HOLD, conviction (LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH), one-sentence key signal, one-sentence primary risk. Be decisive.
The rubric (out of 10)
Each output was scored blind on five dimensions, 2 points each:- Fundamentals depth — specific numbers, named catalysts, no hand-waving
- Technical specificity — actual levels and indicators, not “the chart looks constructive”
- Macro framing — concrete linkage to rates / FX / policy, not boilerplate
- Decisive call — picks a side with a clean rationale; does not hedge across all three lenses
- Citation discipline — references the analyst sections it’s drawing from rather than re-deriving them
Methodology
This is the methodology the numbers below are meant to represent — a template for running this comparison yourself, not a description of a certified run we’re publishing artifacts for (see the warning at the top of this page):- Model:
gpt-4.1in every framework, same temperature settings (analyst roles at 0.4, synthesizer at 0.2). - Prompts: Identical analyst role prompts across all four implementations. The only thing that varies is the orchestration code.
- Runs: Multiple runs per framework, averaged, to smooth out per-call variance. Token counts should include every agent’s input + output, not just the final synthesizer.
- Each implementation calls OpenAI directly except Swarms, which uses the public
/v1/swarm/completionsendpoint. - Timing:
time.perf_counter()around the top-level orchestration call, with a cold-start run excluded from the average. - Cost basis: Swarms’ published swarm-completions rate —
$6.50 / 1Minput,$18.50 / 1Moutput, plus$0.01per agent (all verified against the live/v1/usage/costspricing model). For an apples-to-apples comparison against LangGraph / CrewAI / AutoGen, price their OpenAI calls at whatevergpt-4.1rate OpenAI is currently publishing — we did not re-verify a specific historical OpenAI rate for this page, so plug in the current one when you reproduce this.
Swarms — Implementation
The Swarms version is one HTTP call to/v1/swarm/completions with a HierarchicalSwarm of four agents. No state machine, no graph compilation, no Python process holding the run.
LangGraph — Implementation
LangGraph wants you to model the workflow as aStateGraph with a TypedDict for state and explicit node functions that read and write it. It’s faithful to a graph-machine mental model and works fine; it’s just more code.
TypedDict for state, the fan-out via a no-op start node, the explicit add_edge calls in both directions, and the fact that you marshal the three analyst briefs into the PM’s prompt by hand. None of this is wrong — it’s just code you have to write, debug, and own.
CrewAI — Implementation
CrewAI’s mental model isAgent + Task + Crew. Sequential is the easiest path; the code is cleaner than LangGraph’s because there’s no state class, but you still wire each task’s context array to its upstream tasks manually.
Agent / Task / Crew are the right nouns. The friction we hit in practice: the three analyst tasks run sequentially by default under Process.sequential (not in parallel), so wall-clock is the sum of the four agents, not the max of the fan-out plus the PM. Switching to Process.hierarchical introduces an implicit manager LLM that adds tokens and reshuffles the contract. We benchmarked the sequential form because it’s the one teams ship first.
AutoGen — Implementation
AutoGen’sGroupChat is the most general of the four and also the heaviest. You hand a chat manager a roster of agents and a system message, and it picks the next speaker each turn. That flexibility costs tokens: the manager re-reads the full chat history on every turn.
RoundRobinGroupChat is the right shape for “each analyst speaks once then the PM closes” — but you still have to teach termination via a sentinel string in the PM’s prompt. Second, the chat history is the transport: every agent re-reads every previous turn, which is exactly why the token bill is the largest of the four. Switching to SelectorGroupChat with a custom selector function brings the token count down but adds another ~30 lines of selector code.
Results — Lines of Code
LOC counts below are a direct count of the four code samples above (excluding imports, blank lines, and prompt strings) — these are real and you can verify them by counting the snippets yourself:
If you remove the prompt strings (which are identical across all four), Swarms is the only one of the four that fits comfortably above the fold in a code review. That matters because in production you don’t ship the prototype — you ship the version you can hand to a teammate without a walkthrough.
Results — Cost and Latency (Illustrative)
The structural reason Swarms tends to be cheaper and faster on this shape of task: the three analyst agents in
HierarchicalSwarm run in parallel server-side, and the synthesizer reads their outputs directly without a Python-process round-trip per hop. LangGraph’s fan-out from a start node is real parallelism, but each node still pays a Python-side LangChain serialization cost. CrewAI’s Process.sequential is genuinely sequential. AutoGen’s RoundRobinGroupChat is sequential by construction and pays a re-read tax on every turn as the chat history grows. Whether this nets out to the specific numbers above on your task and model depends on your prompts, model choice, and network conditions — verify it yourself.
Results — Output Quality (Illustrative)
Swarms tends to produce clean, structured memos with the four PM-call fields (CALL / CONVICTION / KEY SIGNAL / RISK) present. Hierarchical roles keep the analysts in their lane and the PM decisive — a well-separated synthesizer role is less prone to hedging (“BUY with conviction LOW pending more data”), which is the failure mode you get when the synthesizer has weak role separation.
LangGraph can match Swarms on quality when the
TypedDict makes the upstream context unambiguous to the PM node — the tradeoff is the latency of explicit state transitions and marshalling code you write yourself.
CrewAI tends to write stylistically polished prose but is more prone to losing points on decisiveness — the PM hedging across the three lenses rather than picking a dominant signal. This is plausibly a side-effect of the backstory / goal framing, which encourages the PM to “balance perspectives.” Tunable with prompt edits, but worth knowing about as a default behaviour.
AutoGen tends to have the most varied output across runs — sometimes excellent, sometimes a wall of chat where the PM partially re-derives the analyst briefs. The GroupChat transport bleeds context between agents in a way the others don’t, which can cut either way depending on temperature and task.
Where Each Framework Wins
LangGraph wins when your workflow is a real graph with conditional edges you need to inspect, replay, or checkpoint. Theinterrupt_before / interrupt_after hooks for human-in-the-loop are genuinely useful, the MemorySaver / SqliteSaver checkpointers give you replayable state, and astream_events is the cleanest streaming model of the four. If you’re building a workflow that genuinely cannot be expressed as a swarm topology — a long-running loop that pauses for human approval, a graph whose shape depends on a classifier node’s output — LangGraph is the right choice. It’s also the most respected by the kind of engineer who reviews your architecture diagram.
CrewAI wins on developer-experience polish. The docs are the best of the four, the examples are runnable, and Agent / Task / Crew is the most teachable mental model — junior engineers grasp it in 30 minutes. If your team is new to multi-agent and you need code that reads well in a code review, this is the gentlest on-ramp. The cost (literal cost) catches up at scale, but for prototyping and small workloads the ergonomics are excellent.
AutoGen wins on research flexibility. GroupChat is the most general primitive — if you want emergent conversation patterns, debate dynamics, or speakers who can address each other ad hoc rather than via a fixed graph, AutoGen will let you express that with less violence than the others. We rate it last on cost and structure for the same reason: that generality is what’s eating your token bill.
Swarms wins on shipping production multi-agent quickly. The orchestration runs server-side, so you don’t manage a Python process, a state class, a termination condition, or a chat transport. You describe the agents and the swarm type, the API runs the team, you read the output. That’s the entire posture. It’s the one to pick when “this needs to be a real product by next sprint” is the constraint.
Why Swarms Tends To Win On This Shape Of Task
Three structural reasons, independent of the specific (illustrative) numbers above:- Zero orchestration code. The
HierarchicalSwarmpayload is the architecture. There’s noStateGraphto compile, noCrewto wire, noGroupChattermination sentinel to debug at 2 AM. The ~40-LOC count is a real count of the snippet shown above, not a stripped-down skeleton. - Server-side parallel fan-out. The three analysts run concurrently inside the API, not inside your Python process — the wall-clock is bounded by the slowest analyst plus the PM, not the sum of all four. Replicating that in LangGraph requires the no-op fan-out node shown above; CrewAI’s
Process.sequentialand AutoGen’sRoundRobinGroupChatrun sequentially out of the box. - Lower token volume per hop. Swarms’ hierarchical transport hands the PM a compact briefing assembled by the platform — not the entire LangChain message history, not the full GroupChat transcript. That’s the structural source of the cost-per-run gap in the illustrative table above, and it should widen the more agents you add.
Reproduce This Comparison Yourself
We have not published a separate benchmark-harness repository for this page. The four code samples above are complete and runnable as shown:- Swarms needs only
requestsand aSWARMS_API_KEY. - LangGraph, CrewAI, and AutoGen each need their own SDK (
langgraph+langchain-openai,crewai,autogen-agentchat+autogen-extrespectively) and anOPENAI_API_KEY.
time.perf_counter(), sum each framework’s own token-usage reporting (response.usage for the OpenAI-backed calls, resp.json()["usage"] for Swarms), and price the tokens at each provider’s current published rate. Swap in your own task, prompts, and rubric — the four-framework structure and the token/cost accounting pattern carry over.
Next Steps
If you’ve decided to migrate, we have direct side-by-side guides for each framework:- Migrate from LangGraph —
StateGraph→GraphWorkflow, node-by-node translations - Migrate from CrewAI —
Crew/Agent/Task→SequentialWorkflowandHierarchicalSwarm - Migrate from AutoGen —
GroupChat→ConcurrentWorkflow/HierarchicalSwarm - Migrate from LangChain —
AgentExecutorand chains → Swarms agents and workflows - Drop-In Migration from OpenAI SDK — keep your existing
openaiclient; change two strings - Cost Optimization Playbook — once you’re on Swarms, this is how you drive cost down another 2–5×