# Orca vs Paperclip (slim)

> Orca scores 57.4 (C) to Paperclip's 52.6 (D) for multi-agent orchestration. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/orca-vs-paperclip.md (~5,000 tokens) · this version ~1,680 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/orca-vs-paperclip.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/orca-vs-paperclip
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt · API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json · MCP: https://www.anchorterminal.com/mcp · Updated: 2026-11-07
- Licence: CC BY 4.0, credit Anchor Terminal and link this page (https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data)

Orca scores 57.4 (C) on agent readiness against Paperclip's 52.6 (D), and leads in 0 of 7 scored categories. Paperclip leads on schema & documentation, security & auth, payments & pricing and transparency & trust. Both do multi-agent orchestration.

- Orca: C 57.4, rank #791 of 1486 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/orca.min.md
- Paperclip: D 52.6, rank #976 of 1486 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/paperclip.min.md
- Orca, good for Developers who want an orchestrator agent to split work across parallel coding agents, on desktop or mobile. Also No key needed to call it; No incidents deducted, where Paperclip loses 15 points for them.
- Paperclip, good for Someone running several coding or operations agents who wants one place for tasks, budgets, approvals and history across harnesses. Ahead on Schema & documentation, 81 against 65; Security & auth, 64 against 43; Payments & pricing, 60 against 40; Transparency & trust, 66 against 54. Also Free to start without a card.

| Category | Orca | Paperclip |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reliability (16%) | 58 | 59 |
| Performance (10%) | pending | pending |
| Schema & documentation (13%) | 65 | 81 |
| Agent ergonomics (13%) | 70 | 70 |
| Security & auth (14%) | 43 | 64 |
| Payments & pricing (10%) | 40 | 60 |
| Task success (10%) | pending | pending |
| Maintenance & community (7%) | 75 | 78 |
| Transparency & trust (7%) | 54 | 66 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Orca | Paperclip |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | Lovecast Inc. | Paperclip Labs, Inc. |
| Auth | None | OAuth or key |
| llms.txt | no | yes |
| Last release | 2026-11-06 | 2026-10-23 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | 2026-07-23 |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | 2026-07-23 |
| Customer content may train models | not read yet | yes, with an opt-out |
| Terms restrict automated access | not read yet | not found in the text |
| Terms restrict benchmarking | not read yet | not found in the text |
| Terms or service can change without notice | not read yet | not found in the text |
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | not read yet | yes |
| Popularity | none | 99k stars, 60k npm/wk |

Why the edge:
- Security & auth, Paperclip +21: Orca 43 (Harness reading. Anonymous usage data with an opt-out, per the README's link to its telemetry docs (15 of 30). Worktrees per agent and a sandboxed Linux build (12 of 20). No prompt-injection guidance (5). No audit log (5). A dependency-security workflow (6 of 20). 15 + 12 + 5 + 5 + 6 = 43.); Paperclip 64 (Harness reading of the framework checklist, as used for the other harnesses. 30 for what leaves the machine by default, 20 for approvals and sandboxing, 15 for prompt-injection posture, 15 for audit and 20 for the security programme. Anonymous usage telemetry is on by default and goes to telemetry.paperclip.ing. The README lists what is excluded and four opt-outs, and Sentry and OpenTelemetry stay off until configured. We found no first-run notice in the CLI source (18). Board approvals for hires and strategy, execution policies and per-action connection permissions, but `claude_local` defaults `dangerouslySkipPermissions` to true, `codex_local` defaults to bypassing approvals and the sandbox, local agents run on the host, sandbox providers are optional plugins and the default `local_trusted` mode has no login (10). A documented `low_trust_review` preset contains agents that read untrusted pull requests or tickets. It is opt-in (10). An activity log of mutating actions, run logs, cost events and audited board API keys (14). SECURITY.md with GitHub private reporting and twelve advisories published per the 8 October check, three now with CVEs in OSV. No security.txt, bug bounty or SOC 2 report found (12).)
- Payments & pricing, Paperclip +20: Orca 40 (Scored on the cloud option. No protocol (0). The cloud price wasn't found on the pages read (0). The desktop app is free and MIT with no card (20). The local app needs no sign-up that we found (20). 0 + 0 + 20 + 20 = 40.); Paperclip 60 (No payment protocol (0). Read with the self-hosted rule. The software is free under MIT with nothing to buy (20). No card and no Paperclip account (20). One `npx` command installs and starts it with no signup (20). Paperclip Cloud is a waitlist with no published price, so there is no paid option to score.)
- Schema & documentation, Paperclip +16: Orca 65 (Harness reading. A docs site with CLI orchestration and native chat pages (65).); Paperclip 81 (The running server publishes OpenAPI at `/api/openapi.json` and validates requests with Zod, and the MCP server's tools take Zod schemas. No copy of the spec is published on the docs site, and paperclip.ing/openapi.json describes only the website (22). llms.txt at paperclip.ing, and docs pages answer as Markdown at `.md` (10). An API reference page per resource and task guides, but the MCP tool descriptions are one line each, such as List agents in a company (13). Typed inputs throughout, apart from the `paperclipApiRequest` tool, which takes any path under `/api` and a JSON body (12). cURL, JavaScript and Python examples and a status-code table, with one `{error}` shape and an occasional `details` field (12). A changelog page for every stable release and release notes in the repository, but the API path carries no version (12).)
- Transparency & trust, Paperclip +12: Orca 54 (MIT (30). Privacy and telemetry docs on the site (not read) (18 of 30). No deprecation policy (5). Disclosed with an opt-out (15 of 20). 30 + 18 + 5 + 15 = 68.); Paperclip 66 (MIT (30). The privacy policy of 23 July 2026 separates self-hosted use from the hosted services and names Paperclip Labs, Inc., but keeps data as long as reasonably necessary, lists no subprocessors, and the 90-day telemetry retention appears only in source. The terms grant a broad licence over content sent to the services and allow model training on opt-in detailed telemetry (16). Release notes carry dated Breaking Changes sections and upgrade guides, with no written deprecation policy or notice period (10). The README discloses telemetry, what it excludes and four opt-outs, and the event contract is public in the repository, but it is on by default (17).)