LobeHub vs llama.cpp

A label partly reflects how much of each tool is visible and scannable, not only how risky it is. A tool without a lockfile cannot get a dependency check.

• LobeHub: 3 critical-severity known vulnerabilities in runtime dependencies (OSV)
• llama.cpp: 12 critical-severity known vulnerabilities in runtime dependencies (OSV)

LobeHub scores 1 point higher in Week 45: LobeHub 69, llama.cpp 68 out of 100. The score combines maintenance, adoption and docs (percentiles of public GitHub signals): LobeHub 78, 60 and 69; llama.cpp 83, 78 and 29. Community (20% weight) is not measured yet. It is not a hands-on test, so a higher score does not say which tool suits your project.

Safety labels from the automated scan of 2 Nov 2026: LobeHub: Caution, 3 critical-severity known vulnerabilities in runtime dependencies (OSV); llama.cpp: Caution, 12 critical-severity known vulnerabilities in runtime dependencies (OSV). It is an automated scan, not a manual audit.

By GitHub stars: llama.cpp 133,105, LobeHub 83,689. Adoption score (percentile among all 52 tracked tools): LobeHub 60, llama.cpp 78. Stars are one public signal and do not measure real-world use.

LobeHub: LobeHub Community License; llama.cpp: MIT. Read each licence text before commercial use.

Pick LobeHub if you rely on thorough README docs (docs 69 vs 29). Pick llama.cpp if recent activity and releases matter most to you (maintenance 83); you want the more widely adopted option (adoption 78); you need a permissive open-source licence (MIT). This comes from measured public data and licences only, not from hands-on testing.