Head to head · Assistant proactive · October 2026 research run
IronClaw vs nanobot
IronClaw scores 66.7 (B) on agent readiness against nanobot's 62.4 (B), and leads in 2 of 7 scored categories. nanobot leads on agent ergonomics and maintenance & community. Both do assistant proactive.
Best AI personal assistants that act for one person · All 190 assistants comparisons
Which one, for what
IronClaw B
Best for One technical owner who wants a self-hosted assistant over Gmail, Calendar, Slack and Telegram with credentials kept out of the model's reach.
Ahead on
- Transparency & trust, 75 against 48
Watch for
Global auto-approve defaults to on in the 1.4.1 source, so tools marked ask (send, trash, delete) run without a prompt. Only financial, approval and budget effects always ask
nanobot B
Best for A technical owner who wants an assistant on their own machine across many chat apps, with file-based memory and a free choice of model.
Ahead on
- Agent ergonomics, 74 against 69
- Maintenance & community, 82 against 74
Also in its favour
- No key needed to call it
Watch for
No per-action approval was found in the docs or source. The agent sends messages, runs shell commands and edits files without asking
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | IronClaw | nanobot | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 16%20 | 67 | 70 | nanobot +3 |
| Performance | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13%16.2 | 74 | 77 | nanobot +3 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13%16.2 | 69 | 74 | nanobot +5 |
| Security & auth | 14%17.5 | 66 | 63 | IronClaw +3 |
| Payments & pricing | 10%12.5 | 60 | 60 | even |
| Task success | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7%8.8 | 74 | 82 | nanobot +8 |
| Transparency & trust | 7%8.8 | 75 | 48 | IronClaw +27 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | -2 | -6 | |
| Total | B 66.7/100 | B 62.4/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | IronClaw | nanobot |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Agent harness | Agent harness |
| Vendor | NEAR AI | HKUDS |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | HTTP | |
| Auth | OAuth or key | None |
| Pricing | Freemium | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT OR Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | yes | yes |
| Last release | 2026-09-29 | 2026-09-15 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no date given | no document linked |
| Customer content may train models | ||
| Terms restrict automated access | ||
| Terms restrict benchmarking | ||
| Terms or service can change without notice | ||
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | ||
| Popularity | 13k stars | 49k stars |
Verdicts
IronClaw
Credentials stay in an encrypted store and are injected at the host boundary, and extensions declare per-tool permissions, network targets and OAuth scopes. The global auto-approve setting defaults to on in the 1.4.1 source, so tools marked ask, such as gmail.send_message, run unprompted until the owner turns it off.
nanobot
nanobot runs on the owner's machine under the MIT licence, with no telemetry found in its source and memory kept as files the owner can read and restore. No per-action approval step was found, and the shell sandbox and workspace restriction are off by default. Five security advisories were published between March and September 2026, all with fixes.
Before you call either
IronClaw
- Open Settings and turn off global auto-approve, or set send and delete tools to ask each time, before connecting mail or chat accounts
- Install with the release installer and run
ironclaw onboard. 1.x does not migrate 0.29 data, so use a fresh home directory - Call
POST /api/v1/responseswith the bearer token from~/.ironclaw/reborn/webui-token. Keep under 30 requests in 60 seconds - Resolve approval and OAuth gates in the web interface. The Responses API fails the turn instead of surfacing them
- Connect MCP servers over HTTP only. The stdio transport is rejected
nanobot
- Set
tools.restrictToWorkspaceto true andtools.exec.sandboxtobwraporseatbeltbefore giving it real accounts. Both are off by default - Run 0.3.0 or later. Earlier versions carry the published SSRF flaw in web fetch (GHSA-vc5v-6vwm-wf9m)
- Keep
allowFromnarrow on every channel and never set["*"]on Email, which has no pairing - Write secrets as
${VAR}references in~/.nanobot/config.json. Plain values are stored in clear text - Use
nanobot -m "..."for a one-shot run, and keepnanobot gatewayrunning for channels, schedules and heartbeat
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, IronClaw or nanobot?
IronClaw scores 66.7 (B) on agent readiness against nanobot's 62.4 (B), and leads in 2 of 7 scored categories. nanobot leads on agent ergonomics and maintenance & community.
Are IronClaw and nanobot open source?
Yes. IronClaw is open source (MIT OR Apache-2.0). nanobot is open source (MIT).
Other comparisons with IronClaw or nanobot
- AstrBot vs IronClaw
- AstrBot vs nanobot
- CowAgent vs IronClaw
- CowAgent vs nanobot
- GAIA vs IronClaw
- GAIA vs nanobot
- Gemini Spark vs IronClaw
- Gemini Spark vs nanobot
- Grok Bot vs IronClaw
- Grok Bot vs nanobot
- Haven vs IronClaw
- Haven vs nanobot
- Hermes Agent vs IronClaw
- Hermes Agent vs nanobot
- Instinct vs IronClaw
- Instinct vs nanobot
- IronClaw vs Leon
- IronClaw vs Lindy
- IronClaw vs NanoClaw
- IronClaw vs Dots
- IronClaw vs OpenClaw
- IronClaw vs PicoClaw
- IronClaw vs Poke
- IronClaw vs QwenPaw
- IronClaw vs ZeroClaw
- IronClaw vs Zo Computer
- Leon vs nanobot
- Lindy vs nanobot
- nanobot vs NanoClaw
- nanobot vs Dots
- nanobot vs OpenClaw
- nanobot vs PicoClaw
- nanobot vs Poke
- nanobot vs QwenPaw
- nanobot vs ZeroClaw
- nanobot vs Zo Computer
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/ironclaw-vs-nanobot.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/ironclaw.json·/api/v1/tools/nanobot.json - From a terminal
anchor compare ironclaw nanobot(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "ironclaw", "b": "nanobot"}at/mcp, no key