Head to head
Rune vs Trent
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
Evidence-traced codebase understanding and security scanning for AI agents over MCP.
Full listing
No reviews yet
Security reviews, threat models over a repo or website, and remediation tracking, in your editor.
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 Trent (97/100 against 89). Trent is hosted and callable through the gateway; Rune runs on your own machine.
| Rune | Trent | |
|---|---|---|
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Safety grade | A89/100 | A97/100 |
| Adoption | Growing | Growing |
| GitHub stars | 8 | 9 |
| Downloads / week | – | – |
| Runs where | Your machine (local) | Hosted (remote) |
| Gateway-ready | No | Yes |
| Tools | 10 | — |
| Write actions | — | — |
| Price per call | Free | Free |
| Licence | MIT | MIT |
| Last release | 2026-09-20 | 2026-09-03 |
| Category | Security | Security |