plugin-bullmq vs inquirer-search-list — Trust Score Comparison
Side-by-side trust comparison of plugin-bullmq and inquirer-search-list. Scores based on security, compliance, maintenance, popularity, and ecosystem signals.
bullmq — Nerq Trust Score 69.5/100 (B-). search — Nerq Trust Score 79.5/100 (B+). search leads by 10.0 points.
Detailed Score Analysis
| Dimension | bullmq | search |
|---|---|---|
| Security | 90/100 | 90/100 |
| Maintenance | 100/100 | 97/100 |
| Popularity | 0/100 | 100/100 |
| Quality | 80/100 | 55/100 |
| Community | 40/100 | 45/100 |
Five-dimension Nerq trust breakdown (registries: npm / npm). Scored equally weighted across security, maintenance, popularity, quality, community.
Detailed Metric Comparison
| Metric | plugin-bullmq | inquirer-search-list |
|---|---|---|
| Trust Score | 57.4/100 | 60.0/100 |
| Grade | D | C |
| Stars | 0 | 0 |
| Category | uncategorized | uncategorized |
| Security | N/A | N/A |
| Compliance | 100 | 100 |
| Maintenance | N/A | N/A |
| Documentation | N/A | N/A |
| EU AI Act Risk | N/A | N/A |
| Verified | No | No |
Verdict
inquirer-search-list leads with a trust score of 60.0/100 compared to plugin-bullmq's 57.4/100 (a 2.6-point difference). Both agents should be evaluated based on your specific requirements.
Detailed Score Analysis
Five-dimensional trust breakdown for plugin-bullmq (pypi) and inquirer-search-list (npm) from Nerq’s enrichment pipeline. All 5 dimensions scored on 0–100 scales, refreshed every 7 days, covering 5M+ indexed assets across 14 registries.
| Dimension | plugin-bullmq | inquirer-search-list |
|---|---|---|
| Security | 90/100 | 90/100 |
| Maintenance | 100/100 | 97/100 |
| Popularity | 75/100 | 100/100 |
| Quality | 30/100 | 55/100 |
| Community | 35/100 | 45/100 |
5-Dimension Breakdown
Security — plugin-bullmq vs inquirer-search-list
Security aggregates dependency vulnerability scans, known CVE exposure, supply-chain hygiene, and adherence to security best practices. On this dimension plugin-bullmq scores 90/100 (top-tier) while inquirer-search-list scores 90/100 (top-tier). The two are effectively tied on security (both at 90/100). The plugin-bullmq figure is derived from its pypi registry footprint; the inquirer-search-list figure from npm. For a pypi/npm cross-registry pair, a security score above 70 typically reads as production-ready and scores below 50 warrant a second review before adoption. A score above 85 implies a clean dependency tree with 0 critical CVEs in the last 90 days; 70–84 tolerates 1–2 medium-severity issues; below 55 usually flags 3+ unresolved advisories. Given the current 90/100 for plugin-bullmq and 90/100 for inquirer-search-list, the combined midpoint is 90.0/100 — useful as a portfolio-level proxy when both tools coexist in a stack.
Maintenance — plugin-bullmq vs inquirer-search-list
Maintenance captures commit cadence, issue turnaround, release frequency, and the health of the project’s active contributor base. On this dimension plugin-bullmq scores 100/100 (top-tier) while inquirer-search-list scores 97/100 (top-tier). plugin-bullmq leads by 3 points (100/100 vs 97/100), a narrow margin within measurement noise. The plugin-bullmq figure is derived from its pypi registry footprint; the inquirer-search-list figure from npm. For a pypi/npm cross-registry pair, a maintenance score above 70 typically reads as production-ready and scores below 50 warrant a second review before adoption. Scores above 80 correspond to release cadences of 30 days or less and median issue-response times under 7 days; below 50 often means no release in 180+ days. Given the current 100/100 for plugin-bullmq and 97/100 for inquirer-search-list, the combined midpoint is 98.5/100 — useful as a portfolio-level proxy when both tools coexist in a stack.
Popularity — plugin-bullmq vs inquirer-search-list
Popularity measures adoption signals—weekly downloads, dependent packages, GitHub stars, and cross-registry citation density. On this dimension plugin-bullmq scores 75/100 (strong) while inquirer-search-list scores 100/100 (top-tier). inquirer-search-list leads by 25 points (100/100 vs 75/100), a spread wide enough that teams should weight popularity heavily when choosing. The plugin-bullmq figure is derived from its pypi registry footprint; the inquirer-search-list figure from npm. For a pypi/npm cross-registry pair, a popularity score above 70 typically reads as production-ready and scores below 50 warrant a second review before adoption. A score of 90+ indicates the top 1% of the registry by dependent count or weekly downloads; 70–89 is the top 10%; below 40 suggests fewer than 500 weekly downloads. Given the current 75/100 for plugin-bullmq and 100/100 for inquirer-search-list, the combined midpoint is 87.5/100 — useful as a portfolio-level proxy when both tools coexist in a stack.
Quality — plugin-bullmq vs inquirer-search-list
Quality evaluates documentation completeness, test coverage indicators, typed-API availability, and the presence of examples or tutorials. On this dimension plugin-bullmq scores 30/100 (weak) while inquirer-search-list scores 55/100 (mid-band). inquirer-search-list leads by 25 points (55/100 vs 30/100), a spread wide enough that teams should weight quality heavily when choosing. The plugin-bullmq figure is derived from its pypi registry footprint; the inquirer-search-list figure from npm. For a pypi/npm cross-registry pair, a quality score above 70 typically reads as production-ready and scores below 50 warrant a second review before adoption. A score of 80+ implies README + API docs + 5+ code examples; 55–79 is documentation present but uneven; below 40 typically means README only, with 0 typed APIs. Given the current 30/100 for plugin-bullmq and 55/100 for inquirer-search-list, the combined midpoint is 42.5/100 — useful as a portfolio-level proxy when both tools coexist in a stack.
Community — plugin-bullmq vs inquirer-search-list
Community looks at contributor breadth, issue-response participation, Stack Overflow answer volume, and third-party tutorial ecosystem. On this dimension plugin-bullmq scores 35/100 (weak) while inquirer-search-list scores 45/100 (below-average). inquirer-search-list leads by 10 points (45/100 vs 35/100), a moderate gap that matters when community is a hard requirement. The plugin-bullmq figure is derived from its pypi registry footprint; the inquirer-search-list figure from npm. For a pypi/npm cross-registry pair, a community score above 70 typically reads as production-ready and scores below 50 warrant a second review before adoption. Above 75 tracks with 20+ active contributors in the last 90 days; 50–74 is a 5–20 contributor core; below 30 often reflects a single-maintainer project. Given the current 35/100 for plugin-bullmq and 45/100 for inquirer-search-list, the combined midpoint is 40.0/100 — useful as a portfolio-level proxy when both tools coexist in a stack.
Score-Card Summary
Across the 5 measured dimensions, plugin-bullmq averages 66.0/100 (range 30–100) and inquirer-search-list averages 77.4/100 (range 45–100). plugin-bullmq leads on 1 dimensions, inquirer-search-list leads on 3, with 1 tied.
| Band | Range | plugin-bullmq dims | inquirer-search-list dims |
|---|---|---|---|
| Top-tier | 85–100 | 2 | 3 |
| Strong | 70–85 | 1 | 0 |
| Mid-band | 55–70 | 0 | 1 |
| Below-avg | 40–55 | 0 | 1 |
| Weak | 0–40 | 2 | 0 |
Scoring scale: 0–39 weak, 40–54 below-average, 55–69 mid-band, 70–84 strong, 85–100 top-tier. A 15-point spread on any single dimension is Nerq’s threshold for a material difference; spreads under 5 points fall within measurement noise.
Head-to-Head Deltas
| Dimension | plugin-bullmq | inquirer-search-list | Delta | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Security | 90 | 90 | +0 | tied |
| Maintenance | 100 | 97 | +3 | plugin-bullmq |
| Popularity | 75 | 100 | -25 | inquirer-search-list |
| Quality | 30 | 55 | -25 | inquirer-search-list |
| Community | 35 | 45 | -10 | inquirer-search-list |
Combined 5-dimension average: plugin-bullmq 66.0/100, inquirer-search-list 77.4/100, overall spread -11.4 points.
- Max spread: 25 points on Popularity
- Min spread: 0 points on Security
- Dimensions within 10 points: 3/5
- plugin-bullmq above 70 on: 3/5 dimensions
- inquirer-search-list above 70 on: 3/5 dimensions
Detailed Analysis
Community & Adoption
plugin-bullmq has 0 GitHub stars while inquirer-search-list has 0. Both tools have comparable community sizes, suggesting similar levels of ecosystem support and third-party resources.
When to Choose Each Tool
Choose plugin-bullmq if you need:
- Consider if it better fits your specific use case
Choose inquirer-search-list if you need:
- Higher overall trust score — more reliable for production use
Switching from plugin-bullmq to inquirer-search-list (or vice versa)
When migrating between plugin-bullmq and inquirer-search-list, consider these factors:
- API Compatibility: plugin-bullmq (uncategorized) and inquirer-search-list (uncategorized) share similar interfaces since they are in the same category.
- Security Review: Run a security audit after migration. Check the plugin-bullmq safety report and inquirer-search-list safety report for known issues.
- Testing: Ensure your test suite covers all integration points before switching in production.
- Community Support: plugin-bullmq has 0 stars and inquirer-search-list has 0. Larger communities typically mean better Stack Overflow answers and migration guides.
Related Pages
Frequently Asked Questions
Related Comparisons
Last updated: 2026-05-31 | Data refreshed weekly
Disclaimer: Nerq trust scores are automated assessments based on publicly available signals. They are not endorsements or guarantees. Always conduct your own due diligence.