Registry › Compare › agent-device vs Stagehand

agent-device vs Stagehand

Both are Grade A and 2.8 points apart, so choose on what you weigh most. agent-device leads on supply-chain integrity and transparency; Stagehand leads on adoption and rests on broader evidence. Note: agent-device's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage B vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types.

A agent-device 91.8

Mobile app automation and verification for AI coding agents. CLI, MCP server, and typed Node.js API for iOS, Android, HarmonyOS, TV, web, macOS, and Linux.

callstack/agent-device · #12 overall · #1 Browser & Computer Use · coverage B (3/5)

Choose agent-device if supply-chain integrity and transparency matter most.

  • +1.7Safety / Integrity: OSSF Scorecard 6.5 against 5.0
  • +1.2Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 6.5 against 5.0
A Stagehand 89.0

The SDK to extract data and interact with any site on the web. Get started with Claude Code, Codex, Eve, Mastra, and more.

browserbase/stagehand · #38 overall · #6 Browser & Computer Use · coverage A (4/5)

Choose Stagehand if adoption matters most.

  • +2.7Adoption: 1.6M weekly downloads against 291k
  • A vs BEvidence coverage: 4 of 5 independent signal types, against 3

Where they differ

20.5
Safety / Integrityagent-device +1.7
18.8
14.0
Transparencyagent-device +1.2
12.8
20.0
Maintenanceagent-device +0.1
19.9
16.2
AdoptionStagehand +2.7
18.9
+3.1
Runtime calibrationagent-device +2.5
+0.6

1 dimension identical: Identity 18.0 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of agent-device and Stagehand, two Browser & Computer Use projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.

Full evidence

Signal agent-devicecallstack/agent-device Stagehandbrowserbase/stagehand
HVTrust score 91.8 89.0
Evidence grade A A
Coverage grade B A
Overall rank #12 #38
Rank in Browser & Computer Use #1 #6
GitHub stars 5.0k 25.7k
Last updated today today
Build provenance Yes Yes
OSSF Scorecard 6.5 / 10 5.0 / 10
License MIT MIT
Downloads 291k/wk 1.6M/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25 20.5 18.8
Identity & provenance / 18 18.0 18.0
Transparency / 17 14.0 12.8
Maintenance / 20 20.0 19.9
Adoption / 20 16.2 18.9
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server Implemented Implemented
External providers — 3 — Anthropic, Browserbase, OpenAI
Requires API keys No Yes
Plugin surface plugins extensions
Provenance drift Match Match
Open in the live compare tool → agent-device profile Stagehand profile More Browser & Computer Use →

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 →