Registry › Compare › LightRAG vs ReMe

LightRAG vs ReMe

Both are Grade A and 3.5 points apart, so choose on what you weigh most. LightRAG leads on adoption and maintenance, and rests on broader evidence; ReMe leads on supply-chain integrity and transparency. Note: ReMe's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage B vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types.

A LightRAG 85.2

[EMNLP2025] LightRAG: Simple and Fast Retrieval-Augmented Generation

HKUDS/LightRAG · #82 overall · #8 Memory & Knowledge · coverage A (4/5)

Choose LightRAG if adoption and maintenance matter most.

+3.3Adoption: 27k weekly downloads against 7.5k
+1.1Maintenance
A vs BEvidence coverage: 4 of 5 independent signal types, against 3

A ReMe 88.7

ReMe: Memory Management Kit for Agents - Remember Me, Refine Me.

agentscope-ai/ReMe · #31 overall · #1 Memory & Knowledge · coverage B (3/5)

Choose ReMe if supply-chain integrity and transparency matter most.

+3.5Safety / Integrity: 100% of recent commits signed, against 60%
+1.0Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 7.1 against 5.9

Where they differ

17.9

Safety / IntegrityReMe +3.5

21.4

13.5

TransparencyReMe +1.0

14.5

19.9

MaintenanceLightRAG +1.1

18.8

17.0

AdoptionLightRAG +3.3

13.7

-1.1

Runtime calibrationReMe +3.4

+2.3

1 dimension identical: Identity 18.0 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of LightRAG and ReMe, two Memory & Knowledge projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.

Full evidence

Signal	LightRAGHKUDS/LightRAG	ReMeagentscope-ai/ReMe
HVTrust score	85.2	88.7
Evidence grade	A	A
Coverage grade	A	B
Overall rank	#82	#31
Rank in Memory & Knowledge	#8	#1
GitHub stars	39.9k	3.5k
Last updated	1d ago	today
Build provenance	Yes	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	5.9 / 10	7.1 / 10
License	MIT	Apache-2.0
Downloads	27k/wk	7k/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	17.9	21.4
Identity & provenance / 18	18.0	18.0
Transparency / 17	13.5	14.5
Maintenance / 20	19.9	18.8
Adoption / 20	17.0	13.7
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	—	Implemented
External providers	6 — Anthropic, Google Gemini, OpenAI, …	2 — Anthropic, OpenAI
Requires API keys	Yes	Yes
Plugin surface	—	plugins
Provenance drift	Match	Match

Open in the live compare tool → LightRAG profile ReMe profile More Memory & Knowledge →

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 v4.3 →