Registry › Compare › Engram vs Obsidian Second Brain

Engram vs Obsidian Second Brain

Both are Grade C and 1.0 points apart, so choose on what you weigh most. Engram leads on adoption; Obsidian Second Brain leads on supply-chain integrity and transparency.

C Engram 64.5

Persistent memory system for AI coding agents. Agent-agnostic Go binary with SQLite + FTS5, MCP server, HTTP API, CLI, and TUI.

Gentleman-Programming/engram · #537 overall · #2 Needs review · coverage C (2/5)

Choose Engram if adoption matters most.

+0.5Adoption: 7.5k GitHub stars against 4.8k

C Obsidian Second Brain 63.5

Persistent memory for Claude Code, Codex and 6 other AI agents, stored as plain markdown in your Obsidian vault. New: Crew, one shared logbook so Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and Grok Bot know what each other did. 48 commands: semantic search, self-rewriting notes, key-less research, scheduled agents.

eugeniughelbur/obsidian-second-brain · #572 overall · #3 Needs review · coverage C (2/5)

Choose Obsidian Second Brain if supply-chain integrity and transparency matter most.

+1.9Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 6.6 against 4.4
+1.3Safety / Integrity: OSSF Scorecard 6.6 against 4.4

Where they differ

10.5

Safety / IntegrityObsidian Second Brain +1.3

11.8

12.2

TransparencyObsidian Second Brain +1.9

14.1

20.0

MaintenanceEngram +0.2

19.8

9.3

AdoptionEngram +0.5

8.8

+1.7

Runtime calibrationEngram +3.5

-1.8

1 dimension identical: Identity 10.8 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Engram and Obsidian Second Brain, two Needs review projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.

Full evidence

Signal	EngramGentleman-Programming/engram	Obsidian Second Braineugeniughelbur/obsidian-second-brain
HVTrust score	64.5	63.5
Evidence grade	C	C
Coverage grade	C	C
Overall rank	#537	#572
Rank in Needs review	#2	#3
GitHub stars	7.5k	4.8k
Last updated	today	1d ago
Build provenance	No	No
OSSF Scorecard	4.4 / 10	6.6 / 10
License	MIT	MIT
Downloads	—	—
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	10.5	11.8
Identity & provenance / 18	10.8	10.8
Transparency / 17	12.2	14.1
Maintenance / 20	20.0	19.8
Adoption / 20	9.3	8.8
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	Implemented
External providers	1 — Anthropic	6 — Anthropic, Google Gemini, OpenAI, …
Requires API keys	No	Yes
Plugin surface	plugins	plugins
Provenance drift	—	—

Open in the live compare tool → Engram profile Obsidian Second Brain profile More Needs review →

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 →