Head to head · Assistant proactive · October 2026 research run
nanobot vs NanoClaw
NanoClaw scores 68.3 (B) on agent readiness against nanobot's 62.4 (B), and leads in 4 of 7 scored categories. Both do assistant proactive.
Best AI personal assistants that act for one person · All 190 assistants comparisons
Which one, for what
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.
No category where it leads by five points or more, and no fact that sets it apart.
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
NanoClaw B
Best for A technical owner who wants an assistant on their own machine, reachable from chat apps, with container isolation and scheduled tasks, and who is willing to keep a fork.
Ahead on
- Reliability, 78 against 70
- Schema & documentation, 82 against 77
- Security & auth, 74 against 63
- Transparency & trust, 65 against 48
Also in its favour
- Free to start without a card
Watch for
The Claude provider runs with permissionMode: 'bypassPermissions', so shell, file and web tools run inside the container with no prompt
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | nanobot | NanoClaw | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 16%20 | 70 | 78 | NanoClaw +8 |
| Performance | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13%16.2 | 77 | 82 | NanoClaw +5 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13%16.2 | 74 | 70 | nanobot +4 |
| Security & auth | 14%17.5 | 63 | 74 | NanoClaw +11 |
| Payments & pricing | 10%12.5 | 60 | 60 | even |
| Task success | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7%8.8 | 82 | 78 | nanobot +4 |
| Transparency & trust | 7%8.8 | 48 | 65 | NanoClaw +17 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | -6 | -5 | |
| Total | B 62.4/100 | B 68.3/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | nanobot | NanoClaw |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Agent harness | Agent harness |
| Vendor | HKUDS | NanoCo, Inc. |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT | MIT |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | yes | yes |
| Last release | 2026-09-15 | 2026-10-09 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | 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 | 49k stars | 31k stars |
Verdicts
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.
NanoClaw
Each session runs in an unprivileged Docker container and API keys stay in a credential gateway on the host, so a manipulated agent cannot read them. Inside the container the agent runs with permission prompts off, network egress is open by default, and it can message any chat it is wired to without approval.
Before you call either
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
NanoClaw
- Install with
git cloneandbash nanoclaw.sh. There is no registry package, and setup needs Docker, Node 22 or later and a Claude or Codex credential - Set
NANOCLAW_EGRESS_LOCKDOWN=truebefore giving an agent credentials or an audience of strangers. The default leaves egress open - Put chats with different audiences in separate agent groups. Every session of a group shares one read-write workspace and memory tree
- Turn on per-request approval for a secret in the gateway when its use should wait for a person. It is off unless configured
- On OneCLI installs, move the gateway to 1.42.0 by the upgrade guide before updating to 2026.10.0. The updater stops until that is done
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, nanobot or NanoClaw?
NanoClaw scores 68.3 (B) on agent readiness against nanobot's 62.4 (B), and leads in 4 of 7 scored categories.
Are nanobot and NanoClaw open source?
Yes. nanobot is open source (MIT). NanoClaw is open source (MIT).
Other comparisons with nanobot or NanoClaw
- AstrBot vs nanobot
- AstrBot vs NanoClaw
- CowAgent vs nanobot
- CowAgent vs NanoClaw
- GAIA vs nanobot
- GAIA vs NanoClaw
- Gemini Spark vs nanobot
- Gemini Spark vs NanoClaw
- Grok Bot vs nanobot
- Grok Bot vs NanoClaw
- Haven vs nanobot
- Haven vs NanoClaw
- Hermes Agent vs nanobot
- Hermes Agent vs NanoClaw
- Instinct vs nanobot
- Instinct vs NanoClaw
- IronClaw vs nanobot
- IronClaw vs NanoClaw
- Leon vs nanobot
- Leon vs NanoClaw
- Lindy vs nanobot
- Lindy vs NanoClaw
- nanobot vs Dots
- nanobot vs OpenClaw
- nanobot vs PicoClaw
- nanobot vs Poke
- nanobot vs QwenPaw
- nanobot vs ZeroClaw
- nanobot vs Zo Computer
- NanoClaw vs Dots
- NanoClaw vs OpenClaw
- NanoClaw vs PicoClaw
- NanoClaw vs Poke
- NanoClaw vs QwenPaw
- NanoClaw vs ZeroClaw
- NanoClaw vs Zo Computer
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/nanobot-vs-nanoclaw.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/nanobot.json·/api/v1/tools/nanoclaw.json - From a terminal
anchor compare nanobot nanoclaw(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "nanobot", "b": "nanoclaw"}at/mcp, no key