Registry › Compare › Ruflo vs Swarms

Ruflo vs Swarms

Swarms leads on trust: 72.9/100 (Grade B) against 66.7/100 (Grade B), a 6.2-point gap. Swarms leads on supply-chain integrity and adoption, and rests on broader evidence.

B Ruflo 66.7

🌊 The original agent harness. Deploy intelligent multi-player swarms, coordinate autonomous workflows, and build conversational AI systems. Features adaptive memory, self-learning intelligence, federation, vector RAG integration, and native Claude Code / Codex / Hermes and many more Integrated

ruvnet/ruflo · #413 overall · #6 Multi-Agent Systems · coverage C (2/5)

Ruflo doesn't lead on any scored dimension in this pair.

B Swarms 72.9

The Enterprise-Grade Multi-Agent Orchestration Framework. Website: https://swarms.ai

kyegomez/swarms · #266 overall · #2 Multi-Agent Systems · coverage B (3/5)

Choose Swarms if supply-chain integrity and adoption matter most.

+2.5Safety / Integrity: 100% of recent commits signed, against 64%
+1.6Adoption
+0.5Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 6.1 against 5.5
B vs CEvidence coverage: 3 of 5 independent signal types, against 2

Where they differ

10.1

Safety / IntegritySwarms +2.5

12.6

13.2

TransparencySwarms +0.5

13.7

11.7

AdoptionSwarms +1.6

13.3

+0.9

Runtime calibrationSwarms +1.6

+2.5

2 dimensions identical: Identity 10.8 · Maintenance 20.0 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Ruflo and Swarms, two Multi-Agent Systems projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.

Full evidence

Signal	Rufloruvnet/ruflo	Swarmskyegomez/swarms
HVTrust score	66.7	72.9
Evidence grade	B	B
Coverage grade	C	B
Overall rank	#413	#266
Rank in Multi-Agent Systems	#6	#2
GitHub stars	73.3k	7.2k
Last updated	today	today
Build provenance	No	No
OSSF Scorecard	5.5 / 10	6.1 / 10
License	MIT	Apache-2.0
Downloads	—	987/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	10.1	12.6
Identity & provenance / 18	10.8	10.8
Transparency / 17	13.2	13.7
Maintenance / 20	20.0	20.0
Adoption / 20	11.7	13.3
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	Implemented
External providers	2 — Anthropic, Supabase	4 — Anthropic, Groq, Multi-provider (LiteLLM), …
Requires API keys	No	Yes
Plugin surface	plugins	marketplace
Provenance drift	—	Match

Open in the live compare tool → Ruflo profile Swarms profile More Multi-Agent Systems →

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 →