Registry › Compare › CAMEL vs Ruflo

CAMEL vs Ruflo

Both are Grade C and 0.1 points apart, so choose on what you weigh most. CAMEL leads on supply-chain integrity and adoption, and rests on broader evidence; Ruflo leads on maintenance.

C CAMEL 64.4

🐫 CAMEL: The first and the best multi-agent framework. Finding the Scaling Law of Agents. https://www.camel-ai.org

camel-ai/camel · #556 overall · #12 Multi-Agent Systems · coverage A (4/5)

Choose CAMEL if supply-chain integrity and adoption matter most.

+3.8Adoption
+3.0Safety / Integrity: 54% of recent commits signed, against 42%
+1.6Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 6.8 against 4.9
A vs CEvidence coverage: 4 of 5 independent signal types, against 2

C Ruflo 64.3

🌊 The original agent harness. Deploy intelligent multi-player swarms, coordinate autonomous workflows, and build conversational AI systems. Features adaptive memory, self-learning intelligence, federation, vector RAG integration, and native Claude Code / Codex / Hermes and many more Integrated

ruvnet/ruflo · #563 overall · #13 Multi-Agent Systems · coverage C (2/5)

Choose Ruflo if maintenance matters most.

+6.5Maintenance: last push 1d ago, against 2d ago

Where they differ

11.2

Safety / IntegrityCAMEL +3.0

8.2

14.3

TransparencyCAMEL +1.6

12.7

13.4

MaintenanceRuflo +6.5

19.9

15.6

AdoptionCAMEL +3.8

11.8

-0.9

Runtime calibrationRuflo +1.8

+0.9

1 dimension identical: Identity 10.8 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of CAMEL and Ruflo, 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	CAMELcamel-ai/camel	Rufloruvnet/ruflo
HVTrust score	64.4	64.3
Evidence grade	C	C
Coverage grade	A	C
Overall rank	#556	#563
Rank in Multi-Agent Systems	#12	#13
GitHub stars	18.0k	81.4k
Last updated	2d ago	1d ago
Build provenance	No	No
OSSF Scorecard	6.8 / 10	4.9 / 10
License	Apache-2.0	MIT
Downloads	11k/wk	—
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	11.2	8.2
Identity & provenance / 18	10.8	10.8
Transparency / 17	14.3	12.7
Maintenance / 20	13.4	19.9
Adoption / 20	15.6	11.8
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Declared	Implemented
External providers	14 — Amazon Bedrock, Anthropic, Cohere, …	2 — Anthropic, Supabase
Requires API keys	Yes	No
Plugin surface	—	plugins
Provenance drift	Match	—

Open in the live compare tool → CAMEL profile Ruflo profile More Multi-Agent Systems →

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 →