Comparisons / Agno vs Haystack
Agno vs Haystack: Which Agent Framework to Use?
Agno (formerly Phidata) is a lightweight Python framework for building agents. Haystack by deepset is a framework for building NLP and LLM pipelines. Here is how they compare — paradigm, ecosystem, and the use cases each one is actually built for.
By the numbers
Agno
39.2k
5.2k
Python
Apache-2.0
2022-05-04
Agno (formerly Phidata)
Haystack
24.7k
2.7k
Python
Apache-2.0
2019-11-14
deepset
GitHub stats as of April 2026. Stars indicate community interest, not necessarily quality or fit for your use case.
| Concept | Agno | Haystack |
|---|---|---|
| Agent | `Agent(model=OpenAIChat(), instructions=[...])` class with `run()` method | `Agent` component with `ChatGenerator`, tool definitions, and message routing |
| Tools | Function tools via `@tool` decorator or built-in toolkits (web search, SQL, etc.) | `Tool` dataclass with function reference, name, description, parameters schema |
| Agent Loop | `Agent.run()` handles tool dispatch internally, configurable via `show_tool_calls` | — |
| Memory / Knowledge | Knowledge bases (PDF, URL, vector DB) injected via `knowledge` param + built-in memory | — |
| Multi-Agent (Teams) | `Team` class with `agents` list, `mode` (sequential, parallel, coordinate), and shared memory | — |
| Storage | `SqlAgentStorage`, `PostgresAgentStorage` for persisting sessions and state | — |
| Pipeline Architecture | — | `Pipeline()` with `add_component()` and `connect()` — a directed graph of typed components |
| RAG / Retrieval | — | `DocumentStore` + `Retriever` + `PromptBuilder` + `Generator` wired in a `Pipeline` |
| Memory | — | `ChatMessageStore` with `ConversationMemory` component in pipeline |
| Deployment | — | Pipeline YAML serialization, `Hayhooks` REST server |
Agno vs Haystack, head to head
Agno Agno (formerly Phidata) is a lightweight Python framework for building agents.
Haystack Haystack by deepset is a framework for building NLP and LLM pipelines.
Both wrap the same underlying agent pattern — an LLM call, a tool dispatch, a loop — in different abstractions. The choice between them is mostly about which mental model and ecosystem fits the team you have, not which one is technically more capable.
Pick Agno if
Pick Agno if agno adds value when you want a batteries-included agent with minimal boilerplate — especially for multi-modal agents or team orchestration. But each of its abstractions maps to a small piece of plain Python. If your agent is straightforward, writing it directly gives you full control with zero framework overhead. Agno is the right fit when the tradeoffs in its intro line up with how your team actually wants to work day-to-day; Haystack would force you to translate.
Pick Haystack if
Pick Haystack if haystack earns its complexity when you're building RAG pipelines with multiple retrieval stages, document processing, and production deployment needs. But for straightforward agents with a few tools, the plain Python version is simpler to write and debug. Haystack is the right fit when the tradeoffs in its intro line up with how your team actually wants to work day-to-day; Agno would force you to translate.
What both add
Both Agno and Haystack pull in a class hierarchy and a dependency tree to wrap what is, at the core, an HTTP POST in a while loop. If your use case is straightforward — one provider, a handful of tools, a single agent — the framework cost may exceed the framework benefit. The lesson below shows the same pattern in ~60 lines without either dependency.
Or build your own in 60 lines
Both Agno and Haystack implement the same 8 patterns. An agent is a function. Tools are a dict. The loop is a while loop. The whole thing composes in ~60 lines of Python.
No framework. No dependencies. No opinions. Just the code.
Build it from scratch →