Registry › Compare › AiSOC vs HOL Guard

AiSOC vs HOL Guard

HOL Guard leads on trust: 91.1/100 (Grade A) against 84.9/100 (Grade A), a 6.2-point gap. HOL Guard leads on supply-chain integrity and transparency.

A AiSOC 84.9

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.

beenuar/AiSOC · #93 overall · #3 Security & Guardrails · coverage B (3/5)

AiSOC doesn't lead on any scored dimension in this pair.

A HOL Guard 91.1

Open-source antivirus for AI agents: block risky tools, secret access, prompt injection, malicious packages, MCP servers, plugins, and skills at runtime.

hashgraph-online/hol-guard · #17 overall · #1 Security & Guardrails · coverage B (3/5)

Choose HOL Guard if supply-chain integrity and transparency matter most.

+5.6Safety / Integrity: 100% of recent commits signed, against 63%
+2.5Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 8.6 against 5.6
+1.2Adoption: 14.6k weekly downloads against 316

Where they differ

17.6

Safety / IntegrityHOL Guard +5.6

23.2

13.3

TransparencyHOL Guard +2.5

15.8

11.4

AdoptionHOL Guard +1.2

12.6

+4.6

Runtime calibrationAiSOC +3.1

+1.5

2 dimensions identical: Identity 18.0 · Maintenance 20.0 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of AiSOC and HOL Guard, 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	HOL Guardhashgraph-online/hol-guard
HVTrust score	84.9	91.1
Evidence grade	A	A
Coverage grade	B	B
Overall rank	#93	#17
Rank in Security & Guardrails	#3	#1
GitHub stars	2.4k	829
Last updated	today	today
Build provenance	Yes	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	5.6 / 10	8.6 / 10
License	MIT	Apache-2.0
Downloads	316/wk	15k/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	17.6	23.2
Identity & provenance / 18	18.0	18.0
Transparency / 17	13.3	15.8
Maintenance / 20	20.0	20.0
Adoption / 20	11.4	12.6
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	Implemented
External providers	—	3 — Anthropic, Google Gemini, Multi-provider (LiteLLM)
Requires API keys	Yes	No
Plugin surface	plugins	extensions
Provenance drift	Match	Match

Open in the live compare tool → AiSOC profile HOL Guard profile More Security & Guardrails →

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 →