Comparisons / ControlFlow vs LlamaIndex
ControlFlow vs LlamaIndex: Which Agent Framework to Use?
ControlFlow vs LlamaIndex, head to head
ControlFlow and LlamaIndex both let you build an agent, but they sit in different parts of the stack and they assume different things about who's writing the code.
ControlFlow by Prefect flips the typical agent framework: instead of defining agents that choose tasks, you define tasks and assign agents to them.
LlamaIndex started as a RAG framework — connect your data, query it with an LLM.
Underneath, both wrap the same thing: a model call, a tool dispatch, a loop. The decision is about which abstraction your team wants to think in day to day, and which ecosystem you're willing to inherit along with it. There's an honest, framework-free version of the same pattern in about 60 lines of Python in the lesson at the bottom of this page — useful as a baseline regardless of which framework wins.
Pick ControlFlow if
Pick ControlFlow if controlFlow's task-centric model is a genuinely different way to think about agent orchestration — define what you want, not how to get it. The Prefect integration adds real production value. But if your workflow is linear and your tasks are simple, plain function composition does the same job with less ceremony. The tradeoffs in its intro should match how your team already thinks about agents; LlamaIndex will feel like translation if they don't.
Pick LlamaIndex if
Pick LlamaIndex if llamaIndex adds genuine value when your agent needs to query structured or unstructured data as part of its reasoning — that's the index-as-tool pattern, and it's well-executed. But if you're building a general-purpose agent that doesn't need RAG, the agent framework is overhead. The plain Python version of the agent loop is the same 60 lines either way. The tradeoffs in its intro should match how your team already thinks about agents; ControlFlow will feel like translation if they don't.
By the numbers
By the numbers
ControlFlow
1.5k
120
Python
Apache-2.0
2024-05-01
Prefect
LlamaIndex
48.3k
7.2k
Python
MIT
2022-11-02
Jerry Liu
GitHub stats as of April 2026. Stars indicate community interest, not necessarily quality or fit for your use case.
| Concept | ControlFlow | LlamaIndex |
|---|---|---|
| Agent | `cf.Agent()` with name, model, instructions, and tool access | `AgentRunner` with `AgentWorker`, or `ReActAgent` for tool-calling agents |
| Tools | Python functions passed to `Task()` or `Agent()` as tool lists | `FunctionTool` for custom tools, `QueryEngineTool` to query an index as a tool |
| Task | `cf.Task()` with `result_type`, `instructions`, `agents`, and `dependencies` | — |
| Flow | `@cf.flow` decorator composing tasks with dependency resolution | — |
| Multi-Agent | Multiple `cf.Agent()` instances assigned to different tasks in one flow | — |
| Observability | Built-in Prefect integration for logging, retries, and monitoring | — |
| Agent Loop | — | `AgentRunner.chat()` manages step-by-step execution via `AgentWorker` tasks |
| RAG Integration | — | `VectorStoreIndex` + `QueryEngineTool` — the agent can query your data as a tool call |
| Memory | — | `ChatMemoryBuffer` with token limit, or custom memory modules |
| Orchestration | — | `AgentRunner` step API for custom control flow, or multi-agent pipelines |
Or build your own in 60 lines
Both ControlFlow and LlamaIndex 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 →