Get an audit

Head to head · Assistants that remember you · October 2026 research run

PicoClaw vs Wajo (Fo)

PicoClaw scores 46.1 (D) on agent readiness against Wajo (Fo)'s 43.9 (E), and leads in 5 of 7 scored categories. Wajo (Fo) leads on schema & documentation. Both do assistants that remember you.

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

PicoClawSipeed · Agent harness D46.1/100#881 of 993 Wajo (Fo)Wajo, Inc. · Platform E43.9/100#907 of 993

Which one, for what

PicoClaw D

Best for A person who wants a chat-app assistant on a cheap Linux board, an old Android phone or a home server, with reminders, web search and file memory, and who accepts running software its maker calls pre-production.

Ahead on

  • Reliability, 54 against 30
  • Security & auth, 51 against 38
  • Payments & pricing, 60 against 30
  • Maintenance & community, 22 against 3
  • Transparency & trust, 56 against 47

Also in its favour

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

Watch for

No commit on main since 19 August 2026 and no release since v0.3.1 on 3 July 2026. An issue of 6 October calls the repository unmaintained, with no reply

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.

Ahead on

  • Schema & documentation, 74 against 51

Also in its favour

  • A hosted endpoint, with nothing to install
  • No incidents deducted, where PicoClaw loses 7 points for them

Watch for

No status page, changelog or security contact found.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runPicoClawWajo (Fo)Edge
Reliability16%205430PicoClaw +24
Performance10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Schema & documentation13%16.25174Wajo (Fo) +23
Agent ergonomics13%16.26668Wajo (Fo) +2
Security & auth14%17.55138PicoClaw +13
Payments & pricing10%12.56030PicoClaw +30
Task success10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Maintenance & community7%8.8223PicoClaw +19
Transparency & trust7%8.85647PicoClaw +9
Negative events≤15-70
TotalD 46.1/100E 43.9/100

Facts side by side

FactPicoClawWajo (Fo)
KindAgent harnessPlatform
VendorSipeedWajo, 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.txtnoyes
Last release2026-07-03none
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
Popularity30k starsnone

Verdicts

PicoClaw

Self-hosted under the MIT licence, with 19 documented chat channels, scheduled and heartbeat tasks, and local file memory. The repository has had no commit since 19 August 2026 and no release since 3 July, and 15 CVEs are listed against it with no advisory or security policy from the project.

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

PicoClaw

  1. Set allow_from to the owner's user ID on every channel before starting the gateway. An empty list accepts messages from anyone
  2. Set tools.exec.allow_remote to false unless chats must run shell commands. The shipped default is true, whatever docs/guides/configuration.md says
  3. Set isolation.enabled to true on Linux (needs bwrap) or run in a container. The deny patterns do not inspect child processes
  4. Use PICOCLAW_KEY_PASSPHRASE for credential encryption. One docs page names PICOCLAW_CREDENTIAL_PASSPHRASE, which the source does not read
  5. Treat the README's ClawdChat line (read a remote skill file and follow it) as untrusted third-party instructions

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, PicoClaw or Wajo (Fo)?

PicoClaw scores 46.1 (D) on agent readiness against Wajo (Fo)'s 43.9 (E), and leads in 5 of 7 scored categories. Wajo (Fo) leads on schema & documentation.

Are PicoClaw and Wajo (Fo) open source?

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

Other comparisons with PicoClaw 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