Registry › Compare › NeMo Guardrails vs REA

NeMo Guardrails vs REA

REA leads on trust: 89.9/100 (Grade A) against 74.7/100 (Grade B), a 15.2-point gap. NeMo Guardrails leads on adoption and rests on broader evidence; REA leads on supply-chain integrity and provenance. Note: REA's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage B vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types.

B NeMo Guardrails 74.7

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

NVIDIA-NeMo/Guardrails · #272 overall · #6 Security & Guardrails · coverage A (4/5)

Choose NeMo Guardrails if adoption matters most.

+2.4Adoption
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 provenance matter most.

+7.2Identity / Provenance: package provenance attested, against none
+6.8Safety / Integrity: package provenance attested, against none

Where they differ

13.9

Safety / IntegrityREA +6.8

20.7

10.8

Identity / ProvenanceREA +7.2

18.0

14.5

TransparencyNeMo Guardrails +0.4

14.1

19.8

MaintenanceREA +0.2

20.0

16.0

AdoptionNeMo Guardrails +2.4

13.6

-0.3

Runtime calibrationREA +3.8

+3.5

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	74.7	89.9
Evidence grade	B	A
Coverage grade	A	B
Overall rank	#272	#30
Rank in Security & Guardrails	#6	#2
GitHub stars	7.5k	447.4k
Last updated	1d ago	today
Build provenance	No	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	7.1 / 10	6.6 / 10
License	NOASSERTION	MIT
Downloads	108k/wk	—
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	13.9	20.7
Identity & provenance / 18	10.8	18.0
Transparency / 17	14.5	14.1
Maintenance / 20	19.8	20.0
Adoption / 20	16.0	13.6
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	—	Implemented
External providers	1 — OpenAI	1 — Anthropic
Requires API keys	No	No
Plugin surface	plugins	plugins
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 v4.4 →