Registry › Compare › Agency Swarm vs Open Multi-Agent

Agency Swarm vs Open Multi-Agent

Agency Swarm leads on trust: 65.7/100 (Grade B) against 60.1/100 (Grade C), a 5.6-point gap. Agency Swarm leads on adoption and rests on broader evidence; Open Multi-Agent leads on supply-chain integrity and transparency.

B Agency Swarm 65.7

Reliable Multi-Agent Orchestration Framework

VRSEN/agency-swarm · #491 overall · #9 Multi-Agent Systems · coverage A (4/5)

Choose Agency Swarm if adoption matters most.

+3.5Adoption
A vs CEvidence coverage: 4 of 5 independent signal types, against 2

C Open Multi-Agent 60.1

Self-hosted TypeScript agent runtime with durable approvals and verifiable run records. Own it, approve it, audit it.

open-multi-agent/open-multi-agent · #690 overall · #21 Multi-Agent Systems · coverage C (2/5)

Choose Open Multi-Agent if supply-chain integrity and transparency matter most.

+2.9Safety / Integrity: 100% of recent commits signed, against 67%
+0.9Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 5.5 against 4.5

Where they differ

9.0

Safety / IntegrityOpen Multi-Agent +2.9

11.9

12.3

TransparencyOpen Multi-Agent +0.9

13.2

17.4

MaintenanceAgency Swarm +0.4

17.0

12.7

AdoptionAgency Swarm +3.5

9.2

+3.5

Runtime calibrationAgency Swarm +5.5

-2.0

1 dimension identical: Identity 10.8 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Agency Swarm and Open Multi-Agent, two Multi-Agent Systems projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.

Full evidence

Signal	Agency SwarmVRSEN/agency-swarm	Open Multi-Agentopen-multi-agent/open-multi-agent
HVTrust score	65.7	60.1
Evidence grade	B	C
Coverage grade	A	C
Overall rank	#491	#690
Rank in Multi-Agent Systems	#9	#21
GitHub stars	4.6k	7.0k
Last updated	1d ago	5d ago
Build provenance	No	No
OSSF Scorecard	4.5 / 10	5.5 / 10
License	MIT	MIT
Downloads	861/wk	—
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	9.0	11.9
Identity & provenance / 18	10.8	10.8
Transparency / 17	12.3	13.2
Maintenance / 20	17.4	17.0
Adoption / 20	12.7	9.2
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	Declared
External providers	2 — Multi-provider (LiteLLM), OpenAI	3 — Anthropic, Google Gemini, OpenAI
Requires API keys	Yes	Yes
Plugin surface	marketplace	—
Provenance drift	Match	—

Open in the live compare tool → Agency Swarm profile Open Multi-Agent profile More Multi-Agent Systems →

How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption, scaled by an evidence-confidence factor. Grade bands: A ≥ 80, B ≥ 65, C ≥ 50, D < 50. Signals refresh daily. Full methodology v4.4 →