Head to head
Healthclaw Guardrails vs Caf
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
Guardrailed FHIR access for AI agents: PHI redaction, audit trail, step-up auth, tenant isolation
Full listing
No reviews yet
MCP server for Caf — Brazilian KYC/KYB: face auth + liveness, document OCR, orchestrated onboarding
Full listingThe short version
Neither has been reviewed yet, so the comparison rests on the scan and the public usage numbers. Both score close on the safety scan (87 and 82 out of 100). Healthclaw Guardrails is hosted and callable through the gateway; Caf runs on your own machine.
| Healthclaw Guardrails | Caf | |
|---|---|---|
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Safety grade | A87/100 | B82/100 |
| Adoption | Growing | Established |
| GitHub stars | 30 | 271 |
| Downloads / week | – | 18 |
| Runs where | Hosted (remote) | Your machine (local) |
| Gateway-ready | Yes | No |
| Tools | — | 9 |
| Write actions | — | — |
| Price per call | Free | Free |
| Licence | MIT | MIT |
| Last release | 2026-09-25 | 2026-08-29 |
| Category | Security | Security |