Registry › Compare › Guardrails AI vs HOL Guard

Guardrails AI vs HOL Guard

HOL Guard leads on trust: 92.2/100 (Grade A) against 76.5/100 (Grade B), a 15.7-point gap. Guardrails AI leads on adoption and rests on broader evidence; HOL Guard leads on maintenance and supply-chain integrity. Note: HOL Guard's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage B vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types.

B Guardrails AI 76.5

Adding guardrails to large language models.

guardrails-ai/guardrails · #200 overall · #4 Security & Guardrails · coverage A (4/5)

Choose Guardrails AI if adoption matters most.

+3.2Adoption: 32.4k weekly downloads against 9.1k
A vs BEvidence coverage: 4 of 5 independent signal types, against 3

A HOL Guard 92.2

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 · #7 overall · #1 Security & Guardrails · coverage B (3/5)

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

+8.4Maintenance: last push today, against 6d ago
+4.4Safety / Integrity: OSSF Scorecard 9.6 against 6.0
+3.1Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 9.6 against 6.0

Where they differ

20.0

Safety / IntegrityHOL Guard +4.4

24.4

13.6

TransparencyHOL Guard +3.1

16.7

11.6

MaintenanceHOL Guard +8.4

20.0

15.3

AdoptionGuardrails AI +3.2

12.1

-2.0

Runtime calibrationHOL Guard +3.0

+1.0

1 dimension identical: Identity 18.0 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Guardrails AI 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	Guardrails AIguardrails-ai/guardrails	HOL Guardhashgraph-online/hol-guard
HVTrust score	76.5	92.2
Evidence grade	B	A
Coverage grade	A	B
Overall rank	#200	#7
Rank in Security & Guardrails	#4	#1
GitHub stars	7.5k	683
Last updated	6d ago	today
Build provenance	Yes	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	6.0 / 10	9.6 / 10
License	Apache-2.0	Apache-2.0
Downloads	32k/wk	9k/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	20.0	24.4
Identity & provenance / 18	18.0	18.0
Transparency / 17	13.6	16.7
Maintenance / 20	11.6	20.0
Adoption / 20	15.3	12.1
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	—	Implemented
External providers	3 — Anthropic, Multi-provider (LiteLLM), OpenAI	3 — Anthropic, Google Gemini, Multi-provider (LiteLLM)
Requires API keys	Yes	No
Plugin surface	—	extensions
Provenance drift	Unknown	Match

Open in the live compare tool → Guardrails AI 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 →