Head to head
agentburn vs WattScope
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
Local profiler: which usage window took you out, and where your agent's money goes
Full listing
No reviews yet
Tracks the estimated carbon footprint of AI model usage, per org and project.
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 agentburn (89/100 against 70). WattScope is hosted and callable through the gateway; agentburn runs on your own machine. agentburn has noticeably more public adoption.
| agentburn | WattScope | |
|---|---|---|
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Safety grade | A89/100 | B70/100 |
| Adoption | Established | New |
| GitHub stars | 113 | – |
| Downloads / week | 172 | – |
| Runs where | Your machine (local) | Hosted (remote) |
| Gateway-ready | No | Yes |
| Tools | — | — |
| Write actions | — | — |
| Price per call | Free | Free |
| Licence | MIT | — |
| Last release | 2026-09-14 | — |
| Category | AI and agents | AI and agents |