Registry › Compare › Neo vs Tambo

Neo vs Tambo

Neo leads on trust: 87.6/100 (Grade A) against 79.8/100 (Grade B), a 7.8-point gap. Neo leads on maintenance; Tambo leads on adoption.

A Neo 87.6

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.

neomjs/neo · #58 overall · #2 UI & App Builders · coverage B (3/5)

Choose Neo if maintenance matters most.

+6.1Maintenance

B Tambo 79.8

Generative UI SDK for React

tambo-ai/tambo · #171 overall · #5 UI & App Builders · coverage B (3/5)

Choose Tambo if adoption matters most.

+1.7Adoption: 6.9k weekly downloads against 3.1k

Where they differ

18.8

Safety / IntegrityNeo +0.4

18.4

12.8

TransparencyNeo +0.3

12.5

20.0

MaintenanceNeo +6.1

13.9

13.1

AdoptionTambo +1.7

14.8

+4.9

Runtime calibrationNeo +2.7

+2.2

1 dimension identical: Identity 18.0 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Neo and Tambo, 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	Tambotambo-ai/tambo
HVTrust score	87.6	79.8
Evidence grade	A	B
Coverage grade	B	B
Overall rank	#58	#171
Rank in UI & App Builders	#2	#5
GitHub stars	3.3k	11.2k
Last updated	today	today
Build provenance	Yes	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	5.0 / 10	4.7 / 10
License	MIT	MIT
Downloads	3k/wk	7k/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	18.8	18.4
Identity & provenance / 18	18.0	18.0
Transparency / 17	12.8	12.5
Maintenance / 20	20.0	13.9
Adoption / 20	13.1	14.8
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	Declared
External providers	—	2 — Anthropic, OpenAI
Requires API keys	No	Yes
Plugin surface	plugins	plugins
Provenance drift	Match	Match

Open in the live compare tool → Neo profile Tambo profile More UI & App Builders →

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 →