# NanoClaw vs ZeroClaw (slim)

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

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/nanoclaw-vs-zeroclaw.md (~2,500 tokens) · this version ~480 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/nanoclaw-vs-zeroclaw.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/nanoclaw-vs-zeroclaw
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.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: B 68.3, rank #229 of 986 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/nanoclaw.min.md
- ZeroClaw: BB 70.2, rank #161 of 986 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/zeroclaw.min.md
- NanoClaw, 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.
- ZeroClaw, 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 Agent-ready, a grade of BB or better.

| Category | NanoClaw | ZeroClaw |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reliability (16%) | 78 | 74 |
| Performance (10%) | pending | pending |
| Schema & documentation (13%) | 82 | 82 |
| Agent ergonomics (13%) | 70 | 72 |
| Security & auth (14%) | 74 | 76 |
| Payments & pricing (10%) | 60 | 60 |
| Task success (10%) | pending | pending |
| Maintenance & community (7%) | 78 | 80 |
| Transparency & trust (7%) | 65 | 64 |

| Fact (where they differ) | NanoClaw | ZeroClaw |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | NanoCo, Inc. | ZeroClaw Labs |
| Licence | MIT | MIT OR Apache-2.0 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | yes |
| Last release | 2026-10-09 | 2026-09-05 |
| Popularity | 31k stars | 33k stars |