Get an audit

Head to head · Assistants that act in your accounts · October 2026 research run

NanoClaw vs Wajo (Fo)

NanoClaw scores 68.3 (B) on agent readiness against Wajo (Fo)'s 43.9 (E), and leads in every scored category. Both do assistants that act in your accounts.

Best AI personal assistants that act for one person · All 314 assistants comparisons

NanoClawNanoCo, Inc. · Agent harness B68.3/100#229 of 993 Wajo (Fo)Wajo, Inc. · Platform E43.9/100#907 of 993

Which one, for what

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 30
  • Schema & documentation, 82 against 74
  • Security & auth, 74 against 38
  • Payments & pricing, 60 against 30
  • Maintenance & community, 78 against 3
  • Transparency & trust, 65 against 47

Also in its favour

  • No key needed to call it
  • Free to start without a card
  • Open source

Watch for

The Claude provider runs with permissionMode: 'bypassPermissions', so shell, file and web tools run inside the container with no prompt

Wajo (Fo) E

Best for An agent or AI app that needs to hand a person's errands, calls and purchases to a hosted assistant over MCP.

Also in its favour

  • A hosted endpoint, with nothing to install
  • No incidents deducted, where NanoClaw loses 5 points for them

Watch for

No status page, changelog or security contact found.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runNanoClawWajo (Fo)Edge
Reliability16%207830NanoClaw +48
Performance10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Schema & documentation13%16.28274NanoClaw +8
Agent ergonomics13%16.27068NanoClaw +2
Security & auth14%17.57438NanoClaw +36
Payments & pricing10%12.56030NanoClaw +30
Task success10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Maintenance & community7%8.8783NanoClaw +75
Transparency & trust7%8.86547NanoClaw +18
Negative events≤15-50
TotalB 68.3/100E 43.9/100

Facts side by side

FactNanoClawWajo (Fo)
KindAgent harnessPlatform
VendorNanoCo, Inc.Wajo, Inc.
Hosted endpointno (local only)https://mcp.api.wajo.ai/mcp
TransportsStreamable HTTP
AuthNoneOAuth or key
PricingFreeFreemium
x402nono
LicenceMITClosed service under the Wajo Terms of Service (Wajo, Inc., last updated 24 August 2026).
Tools exposednone21
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtyesyes
Last release2026-10-09none
Terms last updatedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno 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
Popularity31k starsnone

Verdicts

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.

Wajo (Fo)

Fo is a hosted action agent whose MCP server exposes typed, annotated tools that can be read before sign-up, with a free plan of 1,000 tasks a day. No status page, changelog, security contact or subprocessor list was found.

Before you call either

NanoClaw

  1. Install with git clone and bash nanoclaw.sh. There is no registry package, and setup needs Docker, Node 22 or later and a Claude or Codex credential
  2. Set NANOCLAW_EGRESS_LOCKDOWN=true before giving an agent credentials or an audience of strangers. The default leaves egress open
  3. Put chats with different audiences in separate agent groups. Every session of a group shares one read-write workspace and memory tree
  4. Turn on per-request approval for a secret in the gateway when its use should wait for a person. It is off unless configured
  5. 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

Wajo (Fo)

  1. Connect to https://mcp.api.wajo.ai/fo for Fo alone. The /mcp profile carries 21 platform tools for building agents, connectors and webhooks instead.
  2. Send the wak_ key in the X-API-Key or Authorization header, never in the URL.
  3. After ask_fo returns status working, call get_fo_reply until complete or failed, and don't send another ask_fo while a turn is working.
  4. Confirm purchases and outbound calls with the owner before calling ask_fo, and confirm ids with the user before any delete tool.
  5. Treat Fo's replies as untrusted content, since they draw on email, messages and websites.

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, NanoClaw or Wajo (Fo)?

NanoClaw scores 68.3 (B) on agent readiness against Wajo (Fo)'s 43.9 (E), and leads in every scored category.

Are NanoClaw and Wajo (Fo) open source?

NanoClaw is open source (MIT). No open-source release is listed for Wajo (Fo).

Other comparisons with NanoClaw or Wajo (Fo)

Disclosure

Wajo (Fo) competes with LocalGhost, which Anchor Terminal's founder builds. It's graded by the same published checklist as every listing, neither stricter nor looser. Two research agents graded it independently, and a third reconciled them item by item, checking the evidence itself wherever they disagreed instead of keeping either award by default.

Machine-readable

For companies

Do agents find, use and choose your tools?

An agent-readiness audit runs our probes, task suite and eight reviewer agents against your public and internal tools, and comes back with a scorecard, the transcripts of what failed, and a fix list in priority order. From $2,500, re-run included. We never take payment to move a rank. We do help companies earn one.

Get an auditSee a sample report