Head to head
no_human vs Site
Same numbers we show everywhere else, lined up. Ratings come from users, the grade comes from our scanner, adoption comes from public registries.
No reviews yet
File a task with your local no_human and check on it: task_add and task_status over stdio.
Full listing
No reviews yet
What Can I Drive: the site's own MCP server — checker, enquiry (enquiry = a human handoff, not a...
Full listingThe short version
Neither has been reviewed yet, so the comparison rests on the scan and the public usage numbers. The safety scan favours no_human (75/100 against 56). Site is hosted and callable through the gateway; no_human runs on your own machine. no_human has noticeably more public adoption.
| no_human | Site | |
|---|---|---|
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Safety grade | B75/100 | C56/100 |
| Adoption | Established | New |
| GitHub stars | 317 | – |
| Downloads / week | 330 | – |
| Runs where | Your machine (local) | Hosted (remote) |
| Gateway-ready | No | Yes |
| Tools | 2 | 6 |
| Write actions | 1 | 1 |
| Price per call | Free | Free |
| Licence | MIT | — |
| Last release | 2026-09-19 | — |
| Category | Productivity | Productivity |