# Paperclip vs Paseo (slim)

> Paseo scores 62.1 (B) 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/paperclip-vs-paseo.md (~4,900 tokens) · this version ~1,580 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/paperclip-vs-paseo.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/paperclip-vs-paseo
- 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)

Paseo scores 62.1 (B) on agent readiness against Paperclip's 52.6 (D), and leads in 1 of 7 scored categories. Paperclip leads on reliability, schema & documentation and security & auth. Both do multi-agent orchestration.

- Paperclip: D 52.6, rank #976 of 1486 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/paperclip.min.md
- Paseo: B 62.1, rank #575 of 1486 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/paseo.min.md
- Paperclip, good for Someone running several coding or operations agents who wants one place for tasks, budgets, approvals and history across harnesses. Ahead on Reliability, 59 against 50; Schema & documentation, 81 against 65; Security & auth, 64 against 58. Also Free to start without a card.
- Paseo, good for Developers who want parallel coding agents on their own machines with no telemetry, reachable from anywhere. Also No key needed to call it; No incidents deducted, where Paperclip loses 15 points for them.

| Category | Paperclip | Paseo |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reliability (16%) | 59 | 50 |
| Performance (10%) | pending | pending |
| Schema & documentation (13%) | 81 | 65 |
| Agent ergonomics (13%) | 70 | 70 |
| Security & auth (14%) | 64 | 58 |
| Payments & pricing (10%) | 60 | 60 |
| Task success (10%) | pending | pending |
| Maintenance & community (7%) | 78 | 75 |
| Transparency & trust (7%) | 66 | 68 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Paperclip | Paseo |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | Paperclip Labs, Inc. | Mohamed Boudra |
| Auth | OAuth or key | None |
| Licence | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| llms.txt | yes | no |
| Last release | 2026-10-23 | 2026-11-07 |
| Terms last updated | 2026-07-23 | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | 2026-07-23 | no document linked |
| Customer content may train models | yes, with an opt-out | not read yet |
| Terms restrict automated access | not found in the text | not read yet |
| Terms restrict benchmarking | not found in the text | not read yet |
| Terms or service can change without notice | not found in the text | not read yet |
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | yes | not read yet |
| Popularity | 99k stars, 60k npm/wk | none |

Why the edge:
- Schema & documentation, Paperclip +16: 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).); Paseo 65 (Harness reading. Public docs, a CLI and plugin examples in the repository (65).)
- Reliability, Paperclip +9: Paperclip 59 (Read as local software. Official npm package `paperclipai` (Node.js 24.11 or newer) and a Docker image on GHCR (20). Public CI that runs the tests (pr-trusted.yml selects and runs the test shards, and e2e.yml runs the end-to-end suite), with the pass state on master unreadable on 4 November 2026 because GitHub's pages answer 403 here (15). Per the 8 October check, not re-read on 4 November, 2,849 open issues, 125 labelled bug, 1,599 opened before 8 July, and 78 closed in the last 30 days against 686 opened (6). Calendar versions in semver syntax, with a Breaking Changes section and an upgrade guide in release notes, but breaking changes arrive in ordinary releases and 2026.916.0 carried five (10). No 1.0. The npm `latest` tag is called the stable channel and follows a beta soak of at least three days, while the roadmap says the product is still moving quickly, so half credit (8). 20 + 15 + 6 + 10 + 8 = 59.); Paseo 50 (Local software. Desktop builds, an Android APK, a Docker image and a Nix package (20). ci.yml on the repository; pass state not read (15). GitHub issues and pull requests weren't read (GitHub's pages refuse these sessions), so that line is scored absent (0). CHANGELOG.md (15). Version 0.15.3 (0). 20 + 15 + 0 + 15 + 0 = 50.)
- Security & auth, Paperclip +6: 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).); Paseo 58 (Harness reading. The README says no telemetry, tracking or forced log-ins (30 of 30). Worktree per agent, on your own machine (10 of 20). No prompt-injection guidance (5). No audit log (5). SECURITY.md (8). 30 + 10 + 5 + 5 + 8 = 58.)