Head to head
Redact vs Fidelis Memory
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
Redact PII from text before it reaches a model. Nothing stored, no third-party AI.
Full listing
The short version
Neither has been reviewed yet, so the comparison rests on the scan and the public usage numbers. The safety scan favours Fidelis Memory (83/100 against 60). Redact is hosted and callable through the gateway; Fidelis Memory runs on your own machine. Fidelis Memory has noticeably more public adoption.
| Redact | Fidelis Memory | |
|---|---|---|
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Safety grade | C60/100 | B83/100 |
| Adoption | New | Growing |
| GitHub stars | – | 23 |
| Downloads / week | – | 382 |
| Runs where | Hosted (remote) | Your machine (local) |
| Gateway-ready | Yes | No |
| Tools | — | — |
| Write actions | — | — |
| Price per call | Free | Free |
| Licence | — | MIT |
| Last release | — | 2026-09-19 |
| Category | AI and agents | AI and agents |