agent-swarm vs Solace Agent Mesh
Solace Agent Mesh leads on trust: 80.9/100 (Grade A) against 65.5/100 (Grade B), a 15.4-point gap. agent-swarm leads on transparency and maintenance; Solace Agent Mesh leads on provenance and adoption, and rests on broader evidence.
Your Company Agentic Operating System
Choose agent-swarm if transparency and maintenance matter most.
- +4.3Maintenance: last push today, against 1d ago
- +1.3Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 6.6 against 5.1
Platform for building and running AI agents across the full lifecycle — build, test, deploy, monitor, improve. Hosts your agents, runs their tools, and coordinates them over an event mesh, with sessions, artifacts, auth, evaluators, and observability built in.
Choose Solace Agent Mesh if provenance and adoption matter most.
- +7.2Identity / Provenance: package provenance attested, against none
- +5.2Adoption: 4.9k GitHub stars against 1k
- +4.8Safety / Integrity: package provenance attested, against none
- B vs CEvidence coverage: 3 of 5 independent signal types, against 2
Where they differ
An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of agent-swarm and Solace Agent Mesh, 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 | agent-swarmdesplega-ai/agent-swarm | Solace Agent MeshSolaceLabs/solace-agent-mesh |
|---|---|---|
| HVTrust score | 65.5 | 80.9 |
| Evidence grade | B | A |
| Coverage grade | C | B |
| Overall rank | #501 | #164 |
| Rank in Multi-Agent Systems | #8 | #3 |
| GitHub stars | 1.0k | 4.9k |
| Last updated | today | 1d ago |
| Build provenance | No | Yes |
| OSSF Scorecard | 6.6 / 10 | 5.1 / 10 |
| License | MIT | NOASSERTION |
| Downloads | — | 423/wk |
| Trust dimensions (points earned) | ||
| Safety / integrity / 25 | 13.2 | 18.0 |
| Identity & provenance / 18 | 10.8 | 18.0 |
| Transparency / 17 | 14.1 | 12.8 |
| Maintenance / 20 | 20.0 | 15.7 |
| Adoption / 20 | 7.2 | 12.4 |
| Runtime capability surface (full matrix) | ||
| MCP server | Implemented | — |
| External providers | 4 — Anthropic, E2B, Google Gemini, … | — |
| Requires API keys | No | No |
| Plugin surface | plugins | — |
| Provenance drift | — | Match |
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 →