ink-loader vs shared — Trust Score Comparison

Name: ink-loader vs shared Trust Comparison
Creator: Nerq

Side-by-side trust comparison of ink-loader and shared. Scores based on security, compliance, maintenance, popularity, and ecosystem signals.

ink-loader scores 71.2/100 (B) while shared scores 81.2/100 (A-) on the Nerq Trust Score. shared leads by 10.0 points. ink-loader is a uncategorized agent with 0 stars, Nerq Verified. shared is a uncategorized agent with 0 stars, Nerq Verified.

ink-loader

71.2

B verified

Categoryuncategorized

Stars0

Sourcenpm

Security90

Maintenance98

Documentation80

shared

81.2

A- verified

Categoryuncategorized

Stars0

Sourcenpm

Security90

Maintenance90

Documentation80

Detailed Metric Comparison

Metric	ink-loader	shared
Trust Score	71.2/100	81.2/100
Grade	B	A-
Stars	0	0
Category	uncategorized	uncategorized
Security	90	90
Compliance	N/A	N/A
Maintenance	98	90
Documentation	80	80
EU AI Act Risk	N/A	N/A
Verified	Yes	Yes

Verdict

shared leads with a trust score of 81.2/100 compared to ink-loader's 71.2/100 (a 10.0-point difference). Both agents should be evaluated based on your specific requirements.

Detailed Analysis

Security

ink-loader leads on security with a score of 90/100 compared to shared'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

ink-loader demonstrates stronger maintenance activity (98/100 vs 90/100). 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

ink-loader has better documentation (80/100 vs 80/100). 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

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

When to Choose Each Tool

Choose ink-loader if you need:

More actively maintained with faster release cadence

Choose shared if you need:

Higher overall trust score — more reliable for production use

Switching from ink-loader to shared (or vice versa)

When migrating between ink-loader and shared, consider these factors:

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

ink-loader Safety Report shared Safety Report ink-loader Alternatives shared Alternatives

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is safer, ink-loader or shared?

Based on Nerq's independent trust assessment, ink-loader has a trust score of 71.2/100 (B) while shared scores 81.2/100 (A-). The 10.0-point difference suggests shared has a stronger trust profile. Trust scores are based on security, compliance, maintenance, documentation, and community adoption.

How do ink-loader and shared compare on security?

ink-loader has a security score of 90/100 and shared scores 90/100. Both have comparable security profiles. ink-loader's compliance score is N/A/100 (EU risk: N/A), while shared's is N/A/100 (EU risk: N/A).

Should I use ink-loader or shared?

The choice depends on your requirements. ink-loader (uncategorized, 0 stars) and shared (uncategorized, 0 stars) serve similar use cases. On trust, ink-loader scores 71.2/100 and shared scores 81.2/100. Review the full KYA reports for each agent before making a decision. Consider factors like integration requirements, documentation quality (80 vs 80), and maintenance activity (98 vs 90).

Related Comparisons

Last updated: 2026-08-23 | 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.