Add landing-page FAQ comparing Langfuse to other platforms

[marcklingen]

Adds a product-focused comparison question to the homepage FAQ, modeled on the pricing FAQ.

The new item names the platforms we already compare — LangSmith, Braintrust, Arize, Galileo, and Datadog — and points readers to Why Langfuse? plus the existing comparison pages. Differentiators match /why and those pages: MIT license, OpenTelemetry, self-hosting at Cloud scale, and no model/framework lock-in.

It also reuses the pricing FAQ sentence that Langfuse Cloud is cheaper than LangSmith, Braintrust, Arize, and Datadog on a representative workload.

The homepage Markdown override is kept in sync.

  

Confidence Score: 5/5

The PR appears safe to merge, with no actionable correctness, security, or repository-rule issues identified.

Summary

Adds a homepage FAQ explaining how Langfuse compares with several competing platforms.

• Highlights licensing, OpenTelemetry interoperability, self-hosting, and framework independence.
• Reuses the existing representative-workload pricing comparison.
• Keeps the machine-readable Markdown homepage override synchronized with the rendered FAQ.

_{Reviews (1) · Last reviewed commit: "Mention Langfuse Cloud is cheaper in the..."}

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated
langfuse-docs	Ready	Preview	Sep 19, 2026 1:04pm UTC

[github-actions]

@claude review

[claude]

Claude Code Review

No review was started: this request came from a bot account. Manual reviews can only be requested by someone with write access to this repository. Ask a maintainer to comment @claude review, or have your automation post the comment from a user account with write access.

_{Tip: disable this comment in your organization's Code Review settings.}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-09-20T06:56:06.908810Z	077bacf	Draft marked ready

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[claude]

Looks good — simple, well-scoped content addition.

What was reviewed: confirmed the FAQ question/answer text is byte-for-byte identical between components/home/FAQ.tsx and md-override/index.md (per the markdown-override sync rule); verified every linked path (/why, /handbook/chapters/open-source, /integrations/native/opentelemetry, /self-hosting, /compare, and the five /compare/<competitor> pages) resolves to a real content file or configured redirect; checked heading level (###) and placement match the existing FAQ pattern in the override file.

Extended reasoning...

Overview

The PR adds a single new FAQ entry to the homepage — a product comparison question/answer — duplicated in components/home/FAQ.tsx (the React-rendered faqs array) and md-override/index.md (the hand-authored Markdown override for the same route). No other files are touched. This is a pure content addition with no logic, data flow, or component structure changes.

Security risks

None. This is static marketing copy with outbound links to existing internal pages; there is no user input, no dynamic rendering logic, and no new component behavior.

Level of scrutiny

Low. The change is small, additive, and mechanical (copy-paste of one new FAQ item into two files that must stay in sync per repo convention). I verified the specific risk that matters for this kind of change — override/component sync and link validity — rather than relying on the PR description's claims.

Other factors

I manually traced every new internal link against content/ and lib/redirects.js (since the sandbox denied running pnpm run format:check / the H1 checker directly): /why and /handbook/chapters/open-source are covered by handbookRedirects202509 in lib/redirects.js; /self-hosting, /integrations/native/opentelemetry, /compare, and each /compare/<competitor> page have corresponding .mdx files in content/. The new heading uses ###, consistent with sibling FAQ entries and not affecting the one-H1-per-file rule. The diff's formatting (quote style, trailing commas, blank-line spacing) matches the surrounding code, so no Prettier issues are apparent from visual inspection even though the check command itself could not be run in this sandbox.