code-assistant vs Wan-2.2 — Trust Score Comparison

Side-by-side trust comparison of code-assistant and Wan-2.2. Scores based on security, compliance, maintenance, popularity, and ecosystem signals.

code-assistant scores 74.1/100 (D) while Wan-2.2 scores 89.0/100 (A) on the Nerq Trust Score. Wan-2.2 leads by 14.9 points. code-assistant is a coding tool with 149 stars, Nerq Verified. Wan-2.2 is a image-to-video tool with 977 stars, Nerq Verified.
74.1
D verified
Categorycoding
Stars149
Sourcemcp
Security0
Compliance87
Maintenance1
Documentation1
vs
89.0
A verified
Categoryimage-to-video
Stars977
Sourcehuggingface_models_v3

Detailed Metric Comparison

Metric code-assistant Wan-2.2
Trust Score74.1/10089.0/100
GradeDA
Stars149977
Categorycodingimage-to-video
Security0N/A
Compliance87N/A
Maintenance1N/A
Documentation1N/A
EU AI Act RiskminimalN/A
VerifiedYesYes

Verdict

Wan-2.2 leads with a trust score of 89.0/100 compared to code-assistant's 74.1/100 (a 14.9-point difference). Both agents should be evaluated based on your specific requirements.

Detailed Analysis

Security

Security scores measure dependency vulnerabilities, CVE exposure, and security practices. code-assistant scores 0 and Wan-2.2 scores N/A on this dimension.

Maintenance & Activity

Activity scores reflect how actively each project is maintained. code-assistant: 1, Wan-2.2: N/A.

Documentation

Documentation quality is evaluated based on README, API docs, and example coverage. code-assistant: 1, Wan-2.2: N/A.

Community & Adoption

code-assistant has 149 GitHub stars while Wan-2.2 has 977. Wan-2.2 has significantly broader community adoption, which typically means more Stack Overflow answers, more third-party tutorials, and faster ecosystem development.

When to Choose Each Tool

Choose code-assistant if you need:

  • More actively maintained with faster release cadence
  • Better documentation for faster onboarding

Choose Wan-2.2 if you need:

  • Higher overall trust score — more reliable for production use
  • Larger community (977 vs 149 stars)

Switching from code-assistant to Wan-2.2 (or vice versa)

When migrating between code-assistant and Wan-2.2, consider these factors:

  1. API Compatibility: code-assistant (coding) and Wan-2.2 (image-to-video) serve different categories, so migration may require significant refactoring.
  2. Security Review: Run a security audit after migration. Check the code-assistant safety report and Wan-2.2 safety report for known issues.
  3. Testing: Ensure your test suite covers all integration points before switching in production.
  4. Community Support: code-assistant has 149 stars and Wan-2.2 has 977. Larger communities typically mean better Stack Overflow answers and migration guides.
code-assistant Safety Report Wan-2.2 Safety Report code-assistant Alternatives Wan-2.2 Alternatives

Related Pages

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is safer, code-assistant or Wan-2.2?
Based on Nerq's independent trust assessment, code-assistant has a trust score of 74.1/100 (D) while Wan-2.2 scores 89.0/100 (A). The 14.9-point difference suggests Wan-2.2 has a stronger trust profile. Trust scores are based on security, compliance, maintenance, documentation, and community adoption.
How do code-assistant and Wan-2.2 compare on security?
code-assistant has a security score of 0/100 and Wan-2.2 scores N/A/100. There is a notable difference in their security assessments. code-assistant's compliance score is 87/100 (EU risk: minimal), while Wan-2.2's is N/A/100 (EU risk: N/A).
Should I use code-assistant or Wan-2.2?
The choice depends on your requirements. code-assistant (coding, 149 stars) and Wan-2.2 (image-to-video, 977 stars) serve different use cases. On trust, code-assistant scores 74.1/100 and Wan-2.2 scores 89.0/100. Review the full KYA reports for each agent before making a decision. Consider factors like integration requirements, documentation quality (1 vs N/A), and maintenance activity (1 vs N/A).

Related Comparisons

Last updated: 2026-11-10 | 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.

We use cookies for analytics and caching. Privacy Policy