Registry › Compare › Guardrails AI vs REA

Guardrails AI vs REA

REA leads on trust: 89.9/100 (Grade A) against 76.6/100 (Grade B), a 13.3-point gap. Guardrails AI leads on adoption and rests on broader evidence; REA leads on supply-chain integrity and maintenance. Note: REA's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage B vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types.

B Guardrails AI 76.6

Adding guardrails to large language models.

guardrails-ai/guardrails · #243 overall · #5 Security & Guardrails · coverage A (4/5)

Choose Guardrails AI if adoption matters most.

+1.7Adoption
A vs BEvidence coverage: 4 of 5 independent signal types, against 3

A REA 89.9

Reverse engineer anything with agents, from app behavior down to native binaries.

morluto/rea · #30 overall · #2 Security & Guardrails · coverage B (3/5)

Choose REA if supply-chain integrity and maintenance matter most.

+8.3Maintenance: last push today, against 5d ago
+0.7Safety / Integrity: OSSF Scorecard 6.6 against 6.0
+0.5Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 6.6 against 6.0

Where they differ

20.0

Safety / IntegrityREA +0.7

20.7

13.6

TransparencyREA +0.5

14.1

11.7

MaintenanceREA +8.3

20.0

15.3

AdoptionGuardrails AI +1.7

13.6

-2.0

Runtime calibrationREA +5.5

+3.5

1 dimension identical: Identity 18.0 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Guardrails AI and REA, 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	REAmorluto/rea
HVTrust score	76.6	89.9
Evidence grade	B	A
Coverage grade	A	B
Overall rank	#243	#30
Rank in Security & Guardrails	#5	#2
GitHub stars	7.6k	447.4k
Last updated	5d ago	today
Build provenance	Yes	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	6.0 / 10	6.6 / 10
License	Apache-2.0	MIT
Downloads	31k/wk	—
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	20.0	20.7
Identity & provenance / 18	18.0	18.0
Transparency / 17	13.6	14.1
Maintenance / 20	11.7	20.0
Adoption / 20	15.3	13.6
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	—	Implemented
External providers	3 — Anthropic, Multi-provider (LiteLLM), OpenAI	1 — Anthropic
Requires API keys	Yes	No
Plugin surface	—	plugins
Provenance drift	Unknown	Match

Open in the live compare tool → Guardrails AI profile REA 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 →