AiSOC vs Guardrails AI
AiSOC leads on trust: 84.9/100 (Grade A) against 76.7/100 (Grade B), a 8.2-point gap. AiSOC leads on maintenance; Guardrails AI leads on supply-chain integrity and adoption, and rests on broader evidence. Note: AiSOC's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage B vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types.
Open-source AI Security Operations Center: alert fusion, LLM-agent triage, MITRE ATT&CK investigation, and a replayable decision ledger for every agent step. Self-hostable, runs with no API keys, MIT licensed. Ships an MCP server for Claude, Cursor and Continue.
Choose AiSOC if maintenance matters most.
- +8.0Maintenance
Adding guardrails to large language models.
Choose Guardrails AI if supply-chain integrity and adoption matter most.
- +3.7Adoption: 22.7k weekly downloads against 316
- +2.4Safety / Integrity: 100% of recent commits signed, against 63%
- A vs BEvidence coverage: 4 of 5 independent signal types, against 3
Where they differ
1 dimension identical: Identity 18.0 · Full evidence table
An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of AiSOC and Guardrails AI, two Security & Guardrails projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.
Full evidence
| Signal | AiSOCbeenuar/AiSOC | Guardrails AIguardrails-ai/guardrails |
|---|---|---|
| HVTrust score | 84.9 | 76.7 |
| Evidence grade | A | B |
| Coverage grade | B | A |
| Overall rank | #93 | #210 |
| Rank in Security & Guardrails | #3 | #5 |
| GitHub stars | 2.4k | 7.5k |
| Last updated | today | today |
| Build provenance | Yes | Yes |
| OSSF Scorecard | 5.6 / 10 | 6.0 / 10 |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Downloads | 316/wk | 23k/wk |
| Trust dimensions (points earned) | ||
| Safety / integrity / 25 | 17.6 | 20.0 |
| Identity & provenance / 18 | 18.0 | 18.0 |
| Transparency / 17 | 13.3 | 13.6 |
| Maintenance / 20 | 20.0 | 12.0 |
| Adoption / 20 | 11.4 | 15.1 |
| Runtime capability surface (full matrix) | ||
| MCP server | Implemented | — |
| External providers | — | 3 — Anthropic, Multi-provider (LiteLLM), OpenAI |
| Requires API keys | Yes | Yes |
| Plugin surface | plugins | — |
| Provenance drift | Match | Unknown |
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 →