Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Caffe vs PyTorch comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Caffe
Ranking in AI Development Platforms
24th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
PyTorch
Ranking in AI Development Platforms
8th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the AI Development Platforms category, the mindshare of Caffe is 0.2%, down from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PyTorch is 1.2%, down from 1.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
AI Development Platforms
 

Featured Reviews

RL
Speeds up the development process but needs to evolve more to stay relevant
In the future, they should expand text processing, for a recommendation system, or to support some other models as well — that would be great. The concept of Caffe is a little bit complex because it was developed and based in C++. They need to make it easier for a new developer, data scientist, or a new machine or deep learning engineer to understand it. You can't work with metrics and vectors as Python does. Python is a vector-oriented language, but Caffe is not. When you deal with memory in C++, you have to allocate the data you will use in memory. You have to manage everything in C++. Conversely, in Python, you don't need to do that since everything is abstract and done by Python itself. It depends on every use case or your requirement goals. Some clients will require you to use Caffe because maybe their projects are old and they want to continue with Caffe. Others are comfortable with their current situation or they are afraid of migrating to another library. From my point of view, they need to make it easier for a new developer to use it. They should incorporate Python API to make it richer, overall.
Jithin James - PeerSpot reviewer
User-friendly, easy to learn, performs well, and is more advanced than other tools
The most valuable feature would be the solution’s performance. The product is more advanced than the other libraries that I have used. Since every functionality is production-ready, I can easily write code. I don't have to rewrite the code for production. It has production-ready code from the start. The tool is very user-friendly. It took us a week to learn how to use it. It's straightforward to learn.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Caffe has helped our company become up-to-date in the market and has helped us speed up the development process of our projects."
"It’s reliable, secure and user-friendly. It allows you to develop any AIML project efficiently. PySearch is the best option for developing any project in the AIML domain. The product is easy to install."
"We use PyTorch libraries, which are working well. It's very easy."
"It's been pretty scalable in terms of using multiple GPUs."
"I like that PyTorch actually follows the pythonic way, and I feel that it's quite easy. It's easy to find compared to others who require us to type a long paragraph of code."
"PyTorch allows me to build my projects from scratch."
"The tool is very user-friendly."
"PyTorch is developer-friendly, allowing developers to continuously create new projects."
"I like PyTorch's scalability."
 

Cons

"The concept of Caffe is a little bit complex because it was developed and based in C++. They need to make it easier for a new developer, data scientist, or a new machine or deep learning engineer to understand it."
"PyTorch could make certain things more obvious. Even though it does make things like defining loss functions and calculating gradients in backward propagation clear, these concepts may confuse beginners. We find that it's kind of problematic. Despite having methods called on loss functions during backward passes, the oral documentation for beginners is quite complex."
"I do not have any complaints."
"On the production side of things, having more frameworks would be helpful."
"I've had issues with stability when I use a lot of data and try out different combinations of modeling techniques."
"There is not enough documentation about some methods and parameters. It is sometimes difficult to find information."
"The training of the models could be faster."
"The product has certain shortcomings in the automation of machine learning."
"I would like a model to be available. I think Google recently released a new version of EfficientNet. It's a really good classifier, and a PyTorch implementation would be nice."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"PyTorch is an open-source solution."
"PyTorch is open source."
"It is free."
"PyTorch is open-sourced."
"It is free."
"The solution is affordable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which AI Development Platforms solutions are best for your needs.
837,501 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Manufacturing Company
30%
Computer Software Company
10%
Healthcare Company
8%
Educational Organization
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PyTorch?
I haven't gone for a paid plan yet. I've just been using the free trial or open-source version.
What needs improvement with PyTorch?
The analyzing and latency of compiling could be improved to provide enhanced results.
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Google, Amazon Web Services (AWS) and others in AI Development Platforms. Updated: January 2025.
837,501 professionals have used our research since 2012.