Registry › Compare › Agno vs Strands Agents

Agno vs Strands Agents

Both are Grade A and 3.6 points apart, so choose on what you weigh most. Agno rests on broader evidence; Strands Agents leads on supply-chain integrity and transparency. Note: Strands Agents's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage B vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types.

A Agno 86.9

The self-driving agent platform

agno-agi/agno · #75 overall · #9 Agent Frameworks · coverage A (4/5)

Choose Agno if breadth of evidence matters most.

A vs BEvidence coverage: 4 of 5 independent signal types, against 3

A Strands Agents 90.5

Build an agent harness and control it end-to-end. Open-source SDK for production AI agents in Python & TypeScript - any model, any cloud.

strands-agents/harness-sdk · #20 overall · #6 Agent Frameworks · coverage B (3/5)

Choose Strands Agents if supply-chain integrity and transparency matter most.

+1.0Safety / Integrity: 100% of recent commits signed, against 96%
+0.6Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 5.4 against 4.7

Where they differ

18.2

Safety / IntegrityStrands Agents +1.0

19.2

12.5

TransparencyStrands Agents +0.6

13.1

18.7

AdoptionStrands Agents +0.1

18.8

-0.4

Runtime calibrationStrands Agents +1.9

+1.5

2 dimensions identical: Identity 18.0 · Maintenance 19.9 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Agno and Strands Agents, two Agent Frameworks projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.

Full evidence

Signal	Agnoagno-agi/agno	Strands Agentsstrands-agents/harness-sdk
HVTrust score	86.9	90.5
Evidence grade	A	A
Coverage grade	A	B
Overall rank	#75	#20
Rank in Agent Frameworks	#9	#6
GitHub stars	43.0k	9.0k
Last updated	1d ago	1d ago
Build provenance	Yes	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	4.7 / 10	5.4 / 10
License	Apache-2.0	Apache-2.0
Downloads	515k/wk	9.6M/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	18.2	19.2
Identity & provenance / 18	18.0	18.0
Transparency / 17	12.5	13.1
Maintenance / 20	19.9	19.9
Adoption / 20	18.7	18.8
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	Implemented
External providers	18 — Amazon Bedrock, Anthropic, Brave Search, …	4 — Amazon Bedrock, Anthropic, Google Gemini, …
Requires API keys	No	No
Plugin surface	—	plugins
Provenance drift	Match	Match

Open in the live compare tool → Agno profile Strands Agents profile More Agent Frameworks →

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 →