Dify vs Hypit
Hypit leads on trust: 81.3/100 (Grade A) against 78.6/100 (Grade B), a 2.7-point gap. Dify leads on transparency and adoption, and rests on broader evidence; Hypit leads on provenance. Note: Hypit's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage B vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types.
Build Agentic workflows, RAG pipelines, with rich AI model and tool support on one collaborative workspace. Deploy on cloud, VPC, or self-hosted, so teams move from prototype to production without rebuilding the stack.
Choose Dify if transparency and adoption matter most.
- +4.3Adoption: 24.8M weekly downloads against 8.9k
- +2.4Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 6.0 against 3.2
- A vs BEvidence coverage: 4 of 5 independent signal types, against 3
Clone any viral video with AI agents. Not just a script, the whole workflow: swap the face, the words, the B-roll, ship 100 variants in one command, and get your 100M views.
Choose Hypit if provenance matters most.
- +7.2Identity / Provenance: package provenance attested, against none
Where they differ
1 dimension identical: Safety 12.5 · Full evidence table
An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Dify and Hypit, two Workflow Platforms projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.
Full evidence
| Signal | Difylanggenius/dify | Hypithypit-ai/hypit |
|---|---|---|
| HVTrust score | 78.6 | 81.3 |
| Evidence grade | B | A |
| Coverage grade | A | B |
| Overall rank | #191 | #142 |
| Rank in Workflow Platforms | #6 | #4 |
| GitHub stars | 158.7k | 22.8k |
| Last updated | today | 1d ago |
| Build provenance | No | Yes |
| OSSF Scorecard | 6.0 / 10 | 3.2 / 10 |
| License | NOASSERTION | NOASSERTION |
| Downloads | 24.8M/wk | 9k/wk |
| Trust dimensions (points earned) | ||
| Safety / integrity / 25 | 12.5 | 12.5 |
| Identity & provenance / 18 | 10.8 | 18.0 |
| Transparency / 17 | 13.6 | 11.2 |
| Maintenance / 20 | 20.0 | 19.9 |
| Adoption / 20 | 20.0 | 15.7 |
| Runtime capability surface (full matrix) | ||
| MCP server | Declared | — |
| External providers | — | — |
| Requires API keys | No | No |
| Plugin surface | plugins | — |
| Provenance drift | Partial | 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 →