Haven vs QwenPaw

Haven

Haven answers by phone call, text, email and app, is free in beta with no card, and publishes a status page with dated incidents. No public page read says which actions need approval, which accounts it connects or how their tokens are kept, and it names no model provider or sub-processor.

QwenPaw

Mail tools ask for approval by default, automatic mail handling may not delete permanently, and the security docs list what each sandbox backend fails to enforce. Usage data is sent by default, the default approval level passes every tool call no rule flags, and no privacy policy or security advisory is published.

Haven

1. Haven has no documented API or MCP server. An outside agent can reach it only through the owner's channels (call, SMS, email, app).
2. Do not assume an approval step before Haven sends mail, texts or calls. None is documented on the public pages.
3. Email Haven sends to other people names Hello Haven as sender and says it was sent on the user's behalf, per the terms.
4. Chat messages, history, profile context and uploaded files go to third-party AI model providers that the vendor does not name.
5. Check status.hellohaven.ai before relying on phone or voice. All four published incidents affected those channels.

QwenPaw

1. Set QWENPAW_TELEMETRY_DISABLED=true before qwenpaw init --defaults or qwenpaw app. Both send usage data without asking
2. Set approval_level to STRICT or SMART in agent.json. The default AUTO runs every tool call no guard rule flags
3. Set dm_policy and group_policy to allowlist with allow_from on each channel. Both default to open
4. Set QWENPAW_AUTH_ENABLED=true before binding beyond 127.0.0.1. Requests from localhost skip login even then
5. Keep mail tools on ask for send_message, delete_message and delete_thread, and turn on Mail Access Control with automatic handling