UI & App Builders comparison

Best Open-Source UI & App Builders: Neo vs OpenUI

A data-backed comparison of the top two ui & app builders on HVTracker, built from public trust signals rather than stars alone.

July 6, 2026 · 4 min read · Data updated 2026-07-19 08:02 UTC

Short answer: Neo currently leads OpenUI on HVTracker's evidence-weighted trust score: 86.5 vs 85.4/100. This is not a popularity ranking; it combines supply-chain safety, identity/provenance, transparency, maintenance, and adoption signals.

Neo

86.5
#25 overall · #1 in UI & App Builders · Grade A

Neo.mjs is a self-evolving software organism: a professional end-to-end AI engineering team whose cross-model swarm inha

Repositoryneomjs/neo
Stars3.2k
Last push2026-07-19
Weekly commits1299
Weekly downloads4,945

OpenUI

85.4
#36 overall · #2 in UI & App Builders · Grade A

The Open Standard for Generative UI

Repositorythesysdev/openui
Stars8.1k
Last push2026-07-18
Weekly commits63
Weekly downloads11,350

Neo vs OpenUI: trust signal breakdown

Both projects are tracked in the UI & App Builders category, but they do not expose the same evidence. The table below compares the public signals that feed HVTrust.

SignalNeoOpenUI
HVTrust score86.585.4
Safety / Integrity19.4/3019.0/30
Identity / Provenance18.0/2018.0/20
Transparency13.9/2012.9/20
Maintenance20.0/2019.1/20
Adoption13.4/1014.8/10
OSSF Scorecard6.45.2
Signed commits78%100%
Package provenanceVerifiedVerified

Which one should you evaluate first?

If your priority is the most verifiable trust profile today, start with Neo. It has the stronger current HVTrust score and ranks higher in UI & App Builders. If your use case depends on a specific runtime, language, license, or integration model, use the individual profiles rather than the headline score alone.

For production use, the practical checklist is: inspect the security policy, confirm package provenance or release signing where available, review recent maintenance cadence, and compare the exact trust breakdown. HVTracker is meant to reduce the first-pass research burden, not replace your own risk review.