Why Production Teams Are Ditching LangChain for Custom 150-Line Agents

LangChain promised to revolutionize AI application development. It offered a unified framework for chaining language models, managing context, and orchestrating complex workflows. For a brief moment in 2023-2024, it was the golden standard. But today, a seismic shift is happening in production environments: 85% of successful production teams have abandoned LangChain in favor of custom-built agents. The story isn't one of LangChain's failure—it's a triumph of pragmatism over abstraction. Teams are discovering that building a functional AI agent in 150 lines of plain Python often outperforms frameworks that promised simplicity but delivered complexity.

The Framework That Changed Everything (For a While)

When transformer-based language models exploded onto the scene in late 2022, LangChain arrived as a revelation. Before ChatGPT's chat completions API, language models were difficult to chain together. Context was expensive. You needed sophisticated orchestration to pass outputs from one model to another without losing critical information. LangChain solved this problem elegantly by introducing the concept of "chains"—composable units of language model logic that could be stacked together.

For prototyping, this was phenomenal. You could go from zero to a working chatbot in hours. The framework handled streaming, memory management, and tool integration out of the box. Startups loved it. Enterprises experimented with it. Everyone was building with LangChain.

But here's what happened next: the industry evolved faster than the framework could adapt.

The Abstraction Trap

The core problem with LangChain isn't that it doesn't work—it's that it adds layers of abstraction that become increasingly painful as applications move toward production. Consider the mental model LangChain teaches: chains, agents, memory modules, tool wrappers, execution plans, and message managers. Each layer promises to simplify something, but collectively they create cognitive overhead that obscures the underlying simplicity of what agents actually do.

In reality, what modern AI agents do is remarkably simple. They follow a loop:

Reason: LLM reads context and decides what to do next
Act: Execute a tool or API call
Observe: Get the result and feed it back to the LLM
Repeat: Continue until the task is complete

This is the ReAct (Reason-Act) pattern, and it doesn't require a framework. It requires a prompt, a loop, and a way to call external tools. That's it. Everything else is optimization.

When developers hit production challenges—latency spikes, unexpected behavior, memory leaks—they find themselves deciphering LangChain's internal code and comprehending "huge stack traces" rather than understanding what their agent is actually doing. The abstraction that felt liberating during prototyping becomes a prison during debugging.

The Performance and Cost Reality

Let's talk numbers. One fintech company scaled a fraud-detection AI agent to handle 2 million queries daily. When they migrated away from LangChain to a custom orchestrator, they cut latency by 40% and saved nearly $200,000 annually in GPU costs. That's not because LangChain is poorly written—it's because abstraction layers add overhead.

Every request in a LangChain chain passes through wrappers, middleware, and orchestration logic not optimized for your specific use case. At small scale, this overhead is invisible. At enterprise scale, milliseconds multiply. Each extra millisecond per request, repeated across millions of calls, becomes significant compute cost.

Custom agents let engineers select lightweight APIs, implement targeted caching, and optimize async processing for their exact workload. One company found that a simple Python loop with direct API calls outperformed equivalent LangChain implementations by 40% while reducing infrastructure costs.

The financial impact extends beyond compute. LangChain's reliance on Python means teams inheriting all of Python's performance characteristics. For truly high-performance workloads, custom agents can be rewritten in Go, Rust, or C++. LangChain locks you into Python.

The Instability and Maintenance Nightmare

Here's a complaint you hear constantly: LangChain breaks things all the time. The framework has undergone constant iterations and breaking changes. Version updates are frequent, and they often require significant code rewrites.

Consider the deprecation of AgentExecutor—a core component of LangChain. Teams who built production systems around it suddenly found themselves with broken code and forced migrations to newer APIs. The create_agent method introduced in v1.0 eliminated support for Pydantic models and dataclasses, forcing developers to refactor to TypedDicts. These aren't small compatibility patches—they're architectural shifts that require engineering effort.

A 2025 AI Developer Survey revealed a startling statistic: 45% of developers who experiment with LangChain never use it in production. Part of this exodus is due to stability concerns. When you build critical production systems on a rapidly evolving framework, you're not just using a tool—you're inheriting its entire maintenance burden.

Custom agents avoid this entirely. Once you have a working ReAct loop in 150 lines of Python, you control all updates and changes. There's no dependency management nightmare. There's no tracking of deprecated APIs. There's just your code, which you understand completely.

The Customization Ceiling

Here's the uncomfortable truth about frameworks: they're opinionated. LangChain has strong opinions about how agents should work, how chains should be structured, and how memory should be managed. These opinions work great for the 80% of use cases that fit the framework's model. But production systems often require the remaining 20%.

A legal AI assistant that suggests contracts needs tight oversight on how it parses data and formats outputs. A financial advisor agent that interacts with banking APIs requires customized logic for handling sensitive information. These systems need features LangChain wasn't designed to support: granular control over prompt structuring, custom output parsing, dynamic tool usage based on confidence scores, and human-in-the-loop approval workflows.

With LangChain, you face a choice: either squeeze your requirements into the framework's opinionated patterns, or dig through five layers of abstraction to implement custom logic. Neither option is appealing.

Custom agents flip this completely. You build exactly what you need. Want to run a recursive research loop with a feedback validator? Implement it directly. Want to call an API only if confidence exceeds a threshold? Three lines of code. Want to customize how prompts are structured for different types of requests? You have complete control.

This flexibility is why enterprises—banks, insurance firms, healthcare companies—rarely stick with LangChain for mission-critical systems. They need customization depth that frameworks can't provide.

The Debugging Visibility Problem

When something goes wrong in production, you need answers fast. LangChain's abstraction layers make debugging exponentially harder.

In a custom agent with a simple loop, debugging is straightforward. You can add print statements, log intermediate results, and immediately see where the logic diverged. Every component is visible. Every decision is traceable.

With LangChain, failures are often opaque. An agent makes an incorrect decision—did it misinterpret the task? Did it lack context? Did the tool return unexpected output? Answering these questions requires tracing through multiple layers of LangChain's internal logic. Even with LangSmith (LangChain's dedicated monitoring platform), understanding what went wrong often requires deep technical knowledge of the framework's internals.

This visibility problem is particularly acute when integrating tools. If an LLM tool call fails, does the problem lie in the LLM's output format, the tool wrapper, or the tool execution layer? Without custom code, you're debugging blind.

Custom agents make this straightforward. You control the entire pipeline, so you can instrument every part. Tool calls are logged with full context. LLM outputs are visible before parsing. Failures have obvious root causes.

The Simple Alternative: 150 Lines of Code

Here's what developers are discovering: you don't need a framework. A fully functional AI agent that can read files, execute tools, and iterate on errors can be implemented in about 150-200 lines of straightforward Python.

The minimal implementation includes:

The Core Loop (30-40 lines):

Initialize system prompt and conversation history
Call the LLM with current context
Parse tool calls from the response
Execute requested tools
Add results to history and repeat

Tool Integration (40-50 lines):

Define available tools as simple Python functions
Register them in a tools dictionary
Handle tool invocation and error management
Format results for the LLM

State Management (30-50 lines):

Maintain conversation history
Store intermediate results
Implement a simple memory class if multi-turn support is needed

That's it. 150 lines of comprehensible Python that you fully understand and control.

Compare this to setting up LangChain, understanding its abstractions, learning LangGraph for anything complex, and then debugging through multiple layers when something breaks. The custom implementation isn't just simpler—it's more transparent.

Why Octomind Abandoned LangChain

Octomind's migration story is instructive. After 12 months of using LangChain in production, the team made a deliberate choice to drop it entirely. The result? Simpler code, lower costs, and better control.

The company's engineers described navigating LangChain as a "developer's maze"—high-level abstractions that promised simplicity but required deep framework knowledge to customize. When they moved to direct API calls with a simple Python orchestration layer, code complexity decreased while functionality remained constant.

This wasn't a failure of LangChain specifically. It was recognition that the framework's abstraction level was wrong for production work. It made sense during prototyping. In production, it became baggage.

Octomind's experience mirrors a broader pattern. Developers consistently report the same sequence:

Prototyping Phase: LangChain is fantastic. You build something working in hours.
Production Phase: You need customization, performance optimization, or specialized debugging. You hit LangChain's ceiling.
Migration Phase: You realize a simple Python loop would have been faster to build and easier to maintain.

Teams that recognize this pattern early save months of engineering effort by starting with a custom approach from day one.

The Enterprise Reality: Cost and Stability at Scale

For enterprises, the equation is clear. LangChain is cheaper in the short term. You don't need a large in-house team. The framework handles orchestration and abstractions for you.

But as usage grows, two hidden costs emerge:

Scaling Costs: Abstraction overhead multiplies across millions of requests. A 5% performance tax per request becomes prohibitively expensive at enterprise scale.

Maintenance Costs: Breaking changes require ongoing engineering effort. Framework updates demand code rewrites. Dependency management becomes increasingly complex.

Custom workflows demand upfront engineering investment. You pay engineers to build pipelines, monitoring systems, and connectors. But at scale, you save in multiple ways:

Compute Efficiency: No abstraction overhead means lower resource usage
Infrastructure Savings: Optimization opportunities that frameworks can't exploit
Development Velocity: Once the pattern is established, adding new agents is faster than managing framework complexity
Long-term Stability: Your code doesn't break when the framework updates

Enterprises often save millions over 3-5 years by absorbing the upfront custom engineering costs. That's why banks, insurance firms, and healthcare companies rarely stick with LangChain for mission-critical systems.

The Middle Ground: When LangChain Still Makes Sense

This isn't an argument that LangChain should be abandoned entirely. For certain use cases, it remains valuable:

Rapid Prototyping: Building a proof-of-concept in hours, where you don't yet know if the approach works.

Simple Workflows: Straightforward chains with 2-3 steps where abstraction overhead isn't meaningful.

Integrated Ecosystems: Teams already invested in LangChain's integrations and existing codebase who don't have resources for migration.

Educational Purposes: Learning how LLM applications work. The framework's abstractions can be pedagogically useful, even if they're inefficient in production.

The issue isn't that LangChain is bad—it's that teams are using it for production workloads where its design assumptions don't hold. Once you move past prototyping, the abstraction becomes more hindrance than help.

The Emerging Pattern: Minimal Frameworks or Nothing

The production landscape is splitting into two camps:

Camp 1: Frameworks with Lower Abstraction Levels LangGraph and newer alternatives offer more granular control. LangGraph provides stateful graphs where you write the logic as Python functions. You get some framework benefits (state management, visualization) without the overwhelming abstraction. But adoption is growing because it learned from LangChain's mistakes—it respects developers' need for control.

Camp 2: No Framework The majority of successful production teams are choosing this path. They build custom orchestrators optimized for their specific needs. A simple Python loop, direct API calls, and careful monitoring replace framework complexity.

What's clear is that the all-encompassing framework approach—solve every problem with one tool—is losing ground. The future is either specialized frameworks that provide real value without excessive abstraction, or custom-built solutions for mission-critical work.

What This Means for Your Team

If you're considering building an LLM application, here's the decision framework:

Start with Custom: Build a 150-200 line agent first. It's faster than you think. The ReAct pattern is simple, the implementation is straightforward, and you'll understand every line of code. If your application stays simple, you're done. If it grows complex, you've already built the foundation.

Add Framework Components Selectively: If you need specific capabilities—complex state management, visualization, monitoring integrations—add them. But choose minimal frameworks that provide value without forcing opinionated patterns.

Plan for Production: As you approach production, explicitly ask: what does this framework give me that I couldn't implement myself in 20 lines of code? If the answer is "nothing," consider dropping it.

Invest in Observability: Whether you use a framework or build custom, invest in tracing and monitoring. This is where frameworks like LangSmith can add value—not in agent construction, but in understanding what's happening in production.

Conclusion: The Pendulum Swings Back to Simplicity

The AI application development world is undergoing a healthy correction. For the first time, we had a moment where abstraction fever made sense—LangChain provided genuine value during the chaotic early days of LLM applications. But successful production teams are learning what software engineering has known for decades: abstraction must earn its keep.

A 150-line custom agent doesn't feel impressive. It doesn't have the marquee name of a popular framework. But it has something more valuable: complete transparency, predictable costs, and the freedom to optimize for your specific needs. It's why 85% of production teams are making the move.

The lesson isn't to reject all frameworks. It's to be ruthlessly practical. Use frameworks that provide clear, unambiguous value. Build custom solutions when they're simpler. Optimize for understanding and control, not for the appearance of simplicity. And remember that sometimes the most powerful tool is the one you wrote yourself, understood completely, and controlled entirely.

The future of AI applications isn't in megaframeworks—it's in developers understanding the fundamentals deeply enough to build exactly what they need, nothing more, nothing less.

Sources

Surendira, S. "Why 85% of Production Teams Abandon Frameworks Like..." LinkedIn, December 7, 2025.

Hacker News. "Why we no longer use LangChain for building our AI agents," June 20, 2024.

Van Riel, Z. "Why Senior Engineers Are Ditching LangChain for Plain Python," December 2, 2025.

Zaytrics. "Why LangChain is Not Suitable for Production Use," August 29, 2024.

Ampcome. "LangChain vs Custom Workflows — AI Agents Guide 2025," October 6, 2025.

TechGig. "Is LangChain losing its appeal for developers? Here's the truth," November 26, 2025.

Anthropic. "Build a coding agent: 200 lines of Python and 1 dependency," August 14, 2025.

Oyelabs. "Build AI Agents Without LangChain, CrewAI, or AutoGen," November 7, 2025.

ML Pills. "Step-by-step implementation of a ReAct Agent in LangGraph," April 19, 2025.

Maxim AI. "Agent Tracing for Debugging Multi-Agent AI Systems," December 14, 2025.

Milvus IO. "How do I test and debug LangChain applications?" December 15, 2025.

Bharath, S. "Build a Coding Agent from Scratch: The Complete Python Tutorial," November 27, 2025.