Registry › Compare › NeMo Guardrails vs REA

NeMo Guardrails vs REA

Both are Grade B and 1.7 points apart, so choose on what you weigh most. NeMo Guardrails leads on adoption and maintenance, and rests on broader evidence; REA leads on provenance and supply-chain integrity. Note: REA's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage B vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types.

B NeMo Guardrails 72.1

NeMo Guardrails is an open-source toolkit for easily adding programmable guardrails to LLM-based conversational systems.

NVIDIA/NeMo-Guardrails · #288 overall · #5 Security & Guardrails · coverage A (4/5)

Choose NeMo Guardrails if adoption and maintenance matter most.

+7.2Adoption: 113.8k weekly downloads against 72
+4.2Maintenance: last push 1d ago, against 18d ago
+1.8Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 7.1 against 4.9
A vs BEvidence coverage: 4 of 5 independent signal types, against 3

B REA 73.8

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

morluto/rea · #246 overall · #4 Security & Guardrails · coverage B (3/5)

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

+7.2Identity / Provenance: package provenance attested, against none
+2.0Safety / Integrity: package provenance attested, against none

Where they differ

13.9

Safety / IntegrityREA +2.0

15.9

10.8

Identity / ProvenanceREA +7.2

18.0

14.5

TransparencyNeMo Guardrails +1.8

12.7

16.9

MaintenanceNeMo Guardrails +4.2

12.7

16.0

AdoptionNeMo Guardrails +7.2

8.8

+0.0

Runtime calibrationREA +5.7

+5.7

Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of NeMo Guardrails 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	NeMo GuardrailsNVIDIA/NeMo-Guardrails	REAmorluto/rea
HVTrust score	72.1	73.8
Evidence grade	B	B
Coverage grade	A	B
Overall rank	#288	#246
Rank in Security & Guardrails	#5	#4
GitHub stars	7.2k	415
Last updated	1d ago	18d ago
Build provenance	No	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	7.1 / 10	4.9 / 10
License	NOASSERTION	MIT
Downloads	114k/wk	72/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	13.9	15.9
Identity & provenance / 18	10.8	18.0
Transparency / 17	14.5	12.7
Maintenance / 20	16.9	12.7
Adoption / 20	16.0	8.8
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	—	Implemented
External providers	1 — OpenAI	—
Requires API keys	No	No
Plugin surface	—	—
Provenance drift	Unknown	Match

Open in the live compare tool → NeMo Guardrails 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 v4.3 →