# NanoClaw vs ZeroClaw

> ZeroClaw scores 70.2 (BB) to NanoClaw's 68.3 (B) for assistant proactive. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Canonical: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/nanoclaw-vs-zeroclaw
- Markdown: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/nanoclaw-vs-zeroclaw.md (~2,500 tokens)
- Slim: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/nanoclaw-vs-zeroclaw.min.md (~480 tokens, same facts, less prose, for token-sensitive contexts)
- JSON: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/nanoclaw-vs-zeroclaw.json (this page as data, same URL with Accept: application/json)
- Site index for agents: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt (full text: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms-full.txt)
- API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json
- Updated: 2026-10-12

ZeroClaw scores 70.2 (BB) on agent readiness against NanoClaw's 68.3 (B), and leads in 3 of 7 scored categories. Both do assistant proactive.

- NanoClaw: grade B, 68.3/100, rank #229 of 986. Markdown https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/nanoclaw.md · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/tools/nanoclaw.json
- ZeroClaw: grade BB, 70.2/100, rank #161 of 986. Markdown https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/zeroclaw.md · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/tools/zeroclaw.json
- Best AI personal assistants that act for one person: https://www.anchorterminal.com/best/personal-assistants/index.md
- All 190 assistants comparisons: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/personal-assistants/index.md

## Which one, for what

### NanoClaw (B)

Good 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.

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

### ZeroClaw (BB)

Good for: One person who wants an assistant on their own hardware that answers on Telegram, Discord, Matrix or email, asks before it writes or runs commands, and works with a local model.

Also in its favour:
- Agent-ready, a grade of BB or better

Watch for: The docs state that command execution is not audited. `[security.audit]` records certificate events only, and tool receipts are opt-in and not durable


## Score by category

| Category | Weight | NanoClaw | ZeroClaw | Edge |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Reliability | 16% (20 this run) | 78 | 74 | NanoClaw +4 |
| Performance | 10%, pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13% (16.2 this run) | 82 | 82 | even |
| Agent ergonomics | 13% (16.2 this run) | 70 | 72 | ZeroClaw +2 |
| Security & auth | 14% (17.5 this run) | 74 | 76 | ZeroClaw +2 |
| Payments & pricing | 10% (12.5 this run) | 60 | 60 | even |
| Task success | 10%, pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7% (8.8 this run) | 78 | 80 | ZeroClaw +2 |
| Transparency & trust | 7% (8.8 this run) | 65 | 64 | NanoClaw +1 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | -5 | -3 | |
| **Total** | | **68.3 · B** | **70.2 · BB** | |

## Facts side by side

| Fact | NanoClaw | ZeroClaw |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Kind | Agent harness | Agent harness |
| Vendor | NanoCo, Inc. | ZeroClaw Labs |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports |  |  |
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT | MIT OR Apache-2.0 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | yes |
| llms.txt | yes | yes |
| Last release | 2026-10-09 | 2026-09-05 |
| 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 | 31k stars | 33k stars |

## 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.

**ZeroClaw.** Supervised autonomy is the default, so tools outside a short read-only list wait for the owner's approval, and secrets are encrypted in the config file. The docs state that command execution is not written to an audit log, and the project publishes no privacy policy or terms.

## 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

### ZeroClaw

1. Keep `[risk_profiles.<alias>] level = "supervised"`. `full` runs every tool not listed in `always_ask`, and the YOLO preset removes the sandbox and path rules too
2. Add sending and account tools such as `send_via`, `google_workspace` and `http_request` to `always_ask` so a session-level Always grant cannot skip the prompt
3. List senders in `[peer_groups.<name>] external_peers`. `["*"]` accepts anyone on that channel
4. Set `[web_fetch].allowed_domains` and `[http_request].allowed_domains`. Fetches run unprompted and the OS sandbox does not block egress
5. Run one-shot tasks with `zeroclaw agent -a <alias> -m "<task>"`. A cron or webhook turn has no prompt, so shell calls fall to the command policy

## Questions

### Which is better for AI agents, NanoClaw or ZeroClaw?

ZeroClaw scores 70.2 (BB) on agent readiness against NanoClaw's 68.3 (B), and leads in 3 of 7 scored categories.

### Are NanoClaw and ZeroClaw open source?

Yes. NanoClaw is open source (MIT). ZeroClaw is open source (MIT OR Apache-2.0).


## For agents

- This comparison as JSON: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/nanoclaw-vs-zeroclaw.json, and with the fewest tokens: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/nanoclaw-vs-zeroclaw.min.md
- Over MCP at https://www.anchorterminal.com/mcp (no key): `compare_tools {"a": "nanoclaw", "b": "zeroclaw"}`. From a terminal: `anchor compare nanoclaw zeroclaw`
- Each listing in full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/tools/nanoclaw.json and https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/tools/zeroclaw.json

## Other comparisons with NanoClaw or ZeroClaw

- [AstrBot vs NanoClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/astrbot-vs-nanoclaw.md)
- [AstrBot vs ZeroClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/astrbot-vs-zeroclaw.md)
- [CowAgent vs NanoClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/cowagent-vs-nanoclaw.md)
- [CowAgent vs ZeroClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/cowagent-vs-zeroclaw.md)
- [GAIA vs NanoClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gaia-vs-nanoclaw.md)
- [GAIA vs ZeroClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gaia-vs-zeroclaw.md)
- [Gemini Spark vs NanoClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gemini-spark-vs-nanoclaw.md)
- [Gemini Spark vs ZeroClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gemini-spark-vs-zeroclaw.md)
- [Grok Bot vs NanoClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/grok-bot-vs-nanoclaw.md)
- [Grok Bot vs ZeroClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/grok-bot-vs-zeroclaw.md)
- [Haven vs NanoClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/haven-vs-nanoclaw.md)
- [Haven vs ZeroClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/haven-vs-zeroclaw.md)
- [Hermes Agent vs NanoClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/hermes-agent-vs-nanoclaw.md)
- [Hermes Agent vs ZeroClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/hermes-agent-vs-zeroclaw.md)
- [Instinct vs NanoClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/instinct-vs-nanoclaw.md)
- [Instinct vs ZeroClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/instinct-vs-zeroclaw.md)
- [IronClaw vs NanoClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/ironclaw-vs-nanoclaw.md)
- [IronClaw vs ZeroClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/ironclaw-vs-zeroclaw.md)
- [Leon vs NanoClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/leon-vs-nanoclaw.md)
- [Leon vs ZeroClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/leon-vs-zeroclaw.md)
- [Lindy vs NanoClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/lindy-vs-nanoclaw.md)
- [Lindy vs ZeroClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/lindy-vs-zeroclaw.md)
- [nanobot vs NanoClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/nanobot-vs-nanoclaw.md)
- [nanobot vs ZeroClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/nanobot-vs-zeroclaw.md)
- [NanoClaw vs Dots](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/nanoclaw-vs-openai-dots.md)
- [NanoClaw vs OpenClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/nanoclaw-vs-openclaw.md)
- [NanoClaw vs PicoClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/nanoclaw-vs-picoclaw.md)
- [NanoClaw vs Poke](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/nanoclaw-vs-poke.md)
- [NanoClaw vs QwenPaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/nanoclaw-vs-qwenpaw.md)
- [NanoClaw vs Zo Computer](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/nanoclaw-vs-zo-computer.md)
- [Dots vs ZeroClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/openai-dots-vs-zeroclaw.md)
- [OpenClaw vs ZeroClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/openclaw-vs-zeroclaw.md)
- [PicoClaw vs ZeroClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/picoclaw-vs-zeroclaw.md)
- [Poke vs ZeroClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/poke-vs-zeroclaw.md)
- [QwenPaw vs ZeroClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/qwenpaw-vs-zeroclaw.md)
- [ZeroClaw vs Zo Computer](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/zeroclaw-vs-zo-computer.md)