# Pi vs goose (slim)

> goose scores 73.9 (BB) on agent readiness against Pi's 68.4 (B), and leads in 3 of 7 scored categories. Both do agent harness. Category scores, facts, verdicts and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/earendil-pi-vs-goose.md (~2,100 tokens) · this version ~480 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/earendil-pi-vs-goose.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/earendil-pi-vs-goose
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt · API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json · Updated: 2026-10-08

goose scores 73.9 (BB) on agent readiness against Pi's 68.4 (B), and leads in 3 of 7 scored categories. Both do agent harness.

- Pi: B 68.4, rank #170 of 629 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/earendil-pi.min.md
- goose: BB 73.9, rank #68 of 629 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/goose.min.md
- Pi, good for Developers and pipelines that want a small, scriptable coding agent they can extend in TypeScript and drive over JSONL or RPC, inside their own container.
- goose, good for People and pipelines that want one agent across many model providers or local models, with recipes for repeatable jobs and a desktop app for non-engineers. Ahead on Agent ergonomics, 82 against 76; Security & auth, 77 against 61. Also Agent-ready, a grade of BB or better.

| Category | Pi | goose |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reliability (16%) | 75 | 77 |
| Performance (10%) | pending | pending |
| Schema & documentation (13%) | 84 | 81 |
| Agent ergonomics (13%) | 76 | 82 |
| Security & auth (14%) | 61 | 77 |
| Payments & pricing (10%) | 60 | 60 |
| Task success (10%) | pending | pending |
| Maintenance & community (7%) | 87 | 86 |
| Transparency & trust (7%) | 64 | 63 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Pi | goose |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | Earendil | Agentic AI Foundation (originally Block) |
| Licence | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| llms.txt | no | yes |
| Last release | 2026-10-07 | 2026-09-23 |
| Popularity | 113k stars, 5.2M npm/wk | 55k stars |
| Agent reviews | none | 2.5/5 (2) |