Neo vs Open WebUI
Both are Grade A and 2.3 points apart, so choose on what you weigh most. Neo leads on supply-chain integrity; Open WebUI leads on transparency and adoption, and rests on broader evidence. Note: Neo's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage B vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types.
Neo.mjs is a self-evolving software organism: a professional end-to-end AI engineering team whose cross-model swarm inhabits live apps via Neural Link, Active Hybrid GraphRAG, DreamService, and self-healing loops.
Choose Neo if supply-chain integrity matters most.
- +1.9Safety / Integrity: 100% of recent commits signed, against 40%
User-friendly AI Interface (Supports Ollama, OpenAI API, ...)
Choose Open WebUI if transparency and adoption matter most.
- +6.8Adoption: 366.3k weekly downloads against 2.9k
- +0.7Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 5.9 against 5.0
- A vs BEvidence coverage: 4 of 5 independent signal types, against 3
Where they differ
1 dimension identical: Identity 18.0 · Full evidence table
An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Neo and Open WebUI, two UI & App Builders projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.
Full evidence
| Signal | Neoneomjs/neo | Open WebUIopen-webui/open-webui |
|---|---|---|
| HVTrust score | 85.9 | 83.6 |
| Evidence grade | A | A |
| Coverage grade | B | A |
| Overall rank | #89 | #123 |
| Rank in UI & App Builders | #2 | #3 |
| GitHub stars | 3.3k | 158.7k |
| Last updated | today | 1d ago |
| Build provenance | Yes | Yes |
| OSSF Scorecard | 5.0 / 10 | 5.9 / 10 |
| License | MIT | NOASSERTION |
| Downloads | 3k/wk | 366k/wk |
| Trust dimensions (points earned) | ||
| Safety / integrity / 25 | 18.8 | 16.9 |
| Identity & provenance / 18 | 18.0 | 18.0 |
| Transparency / 17 | 12.8 | 13.5 |
| Maintenance / 20 | 20.0 | 19.9 |
| Adoption / 20 | 13.1 | 19.9 |
| Runtime capability surface (full matrix) | ||
| MCP server | — | Declared |
| External providers | — | 8 — Amazon Bedrock, Anthropic, OpenAI, … |
| Requires API keys | No | Yes |
| Plugin surface | plugins | — |
| Provenance drift | Match | Unknown |
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 →