grapheme vs boolean.py — Trust Score Comparison

Side-by-side trust comparison of grapheme and boolean.py. Scores based on security, compliance, maintenance, popularity, and ecosystem signals.

grapheme scores 62.5/100 (C+) while boolean.py scores 72.5/100 (B) on the Nerq Trust Score. boolean.py leads by 10.0 points. grapheme is a uncategorized agent with 0 stars. boolean.py is a uncategorized agent with 0 stars, Nerq Verified.
62.5
C+
Categoryuncategorized
Stars0
Sourcepypi
Security90
Maintenance50
Documentation55
vs
72.5
B verified
Categoryuncategorized
Stars0
Sourcepypi
Security90
Maintenance73
Documentation65

Detailed Metric Comparison

Metric grapheme boolean.py
Trust Score62.5/10072.5/100
GradeC+B
Stars00
Categoryuncategorizeduncategorized
Security9090
ComplianceN/AN/A
Maintenance5073
Documentation5565
EU AI Act RiskN/AN/A
VerifiedNoYes

Verdict

boolean.py leads with a trust score of 72.5/100 compared to grapheme's 62.5/100 (a 10.0-point difference). boolean.py scores higher on maintenance (73 vs 50). Both agents should be evaluated based on your specific requirements.

Detailed Analysis

Security

grapheme leads on security with a score of 90/100 compared to boolean.py's 90/100. This score reflects dependency vulnerability analysis, known CVE exposure, and security best practices. A higher security score means fewer known vulnerabilities and better security hygiene in the codebase.

Maintenance & Activity

boolean.py demonstrates stronger maintenance activity (73/100 vs 50/100). This metric captures commit frequency, issue response times, and release cadence. Actively maintained tools receive faster security patches and are less likely to accumulate technical debt.

Documentation

boolean.py has better documentation (65/100 vs 55/100). Good documentation reduces onboarding time and helps teams adopt the tool safely. This score evaluates README completeness, API documentation, code examples, and tutorial availability.

Community & Adoption

grapheme has 0 GitHub stars while boolean.py has 0. Both tools have comparable community sizes, suggesting similar levels of ecosystem support and third-party resources.

When to Choose Each Tool

Choose grapheme if you need:

  • Consider if it better fits your specific use case

Choose boolean.py if you need:

  • Higher overall trust score — more reliable for production use
  • More actively maintained with faster release cadence
  • Better documentation for faster onboarding

Switching from grapheme to boolean.py (or vice versa)

When migrating between grapheme and boolean.py, consider these factors:

  1. API Compatibility: grapheme (uncategorized) and boolean.py (uncategorized) share similar interfaces since they are in the same category.
  2. Security Review: Run a security audit after migration. Check the grapheme safety report and boolean.py safety report for known issues.
  3. Testing: Ensure your test suite covers all integration points before switching in production.
  4. Community Support: grapheme has 0 stars and boolean.py has 0. Larger communities typically mean better Stack Overflow answers and migration guides.
grapheme Safety Report boolean.py Safety Report grapheme Alternatives boolean.py Alternatives

Related Pages

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is safer, grapheme or boolean.py?
Based on Nerq's independent trust assessment, grapheme has a trust score of 62.5/100 (C+) while boolean.py scores 72.5/100 (B). The 10.0-point difference suggests boolean.py has a stronger trust profile. Trust scores are based on security, compliance, maintenance, documentation, and community adoption.
How do grapheme and boolean.py compare on security?
grapheme has a security score of 90/100 and boolean.py scores 90/100. Both have comparable security profiles. grapheme's compliance score is N/A/100 (EU risk: N/A), while boolean.py's is N/A/100 (EU risk: N/A).
Should I use grapheme or boolean.py?
The choice depends on your requirements. grapheme (uncategorized, 0 stars) and boolean.py (uncategorized, 0 stars) serve similar use cases. On trust, grapheme scores 62.5/100 and boolean.py scores 72.5/100. Review the full KYA reports for each agent before making a decision. Consider factors like integration requirements, documentation quality (55 vs 65), and maintenance activity (50 vs 73).

Related Comparisons

Last updated: 2026-10-18 | 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