Ollama vs llama.cpp
Updated : the last week a score, rank or safety result on this page changed.
- Maintenance 30%6783
- Adoption 30%8178
- Docs 20%6929
- Community 20%, not measured yet––
Ollama scores 5 points higher. Ollama leads on adoption and docs; llama.cpp leads on maintenance.
What this does not tell you
Scores are percentiles of public GitHub signals. Nobody here tested these tools hands-on, so the higher score is not a verdict on which suits your project. Yellow marks the higher value.
Which one fits you
From measured data and licences, not from testing.
Pick Ollama if
- You want the more widely adopted option (adoption 81).
- You rely on thorough README docs (docs 69 vs 29).
Pick llama.cpp if
- Recent activity and releases matter most to you (maintenance 83).
Safety side by side
Automated scan, 2 Nov 2026. Not a manual audit.
- CautionOllama2 critical-severity known vulnerabilities in runtime dependencies (OSV)
- Cautionllama.cpp12 critical-severity known vulnerabilities in runtime dependencies (OSV)
Why different labels?
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.
- Ollama: 2 critical-severity known vulnerabilities in runtime dependencies (OSV)
- llama.cpp: 12 critical-severity known vulnerabilities in runtime dependencies (OSV)
Repo facts
Yellow = the higher value, where higher is better.
| Fact | Ollama | llama.cpp |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 73 | 68 |
| Stars | 185,623 | 133,105 |
| Last push | 2 Nov | 2 Nov |
| Releases, 90 days | 10+ | 10+ |
| Licence | MIT | MIT |
| Open source | Open source | Open source |
| Language | Go | C++ |
| Type | AI tool | AI tool |
| Runs locally | yes | yes |
| Hosted option | unknown | unknown |
“Runs locally” and “Hosted option” are read from each README automatically (or from the official docs where noted); “unknown” means no evidence was found, not that it is absent.
Short answer
Ollama scores 73 and llama.cpp 68 this week. Ollama leads on README docs (69 vs 29), llama.cpp leads on maintenance (83 vs 67) and Ollama leads on adoption (81 vs 78). Both are MIT, open source.
Read the full answer
Safety, Ollama: the automated scan gives it a Caution label for 2 critical-severity known vulnerabilities in runtime dependencies (OSV). llama.cpp: the scan gives it a Caution label for 12 critical-severity known vulnerabilities in runtime dependencies (OSV). Ollama safety details · llama.cpp safety details
Where llama.cpp's listed critical advisories sit: requirements.txt (top 5 shown on the tool page). Each advisory counts once per package, even if it appears in several lockfiles.
Network exposure: what each project says
- Ollama binds to
127.0.0.1:11434by default, so it is only reachable from your own machine until you changeOLLAMA_HOST. Cloud features can be turned off withOLLAMA_NO_CLOUD=1. - llama.cpp's security policy says that if you must expose it to an untrusted network, don't use the RPC backend,
ggml-rpc-serverorllama-server; confirm hashes of downloaded model weights; and run untrusted models in a sandbox such as a container or VM.
Sources: Ollama FAQ · llama.cpp SECURITY.md.
Which should you pick?
- One command to download and run models, with a local API: Ollama.
- The C/C++ inference engine itself, to build, embed or tune: llama.cpp.
- A chat interface on top: Open WebUI or LobeHub.
- More: Ollama vs Open WebUI · Open WebUI vs llama.cpp · Run AI models locally
Questions about Ollama vs llama.cpp
Answers use this week's StackGrade data.
Ollama or llama.cpp: which scores higher on StackGrade?
Ollama scores 5 points higher in Week 45: Ollama 73, llama.cpp 68 out of 100. The score combines maintenance, adoption and docs (percentiles of public GitHub signals): Ollama 67, 81 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.
Is Ollama or llama.cpp safer to use?
Safety labels from the automated scan of 2 Nov 2026: Ollama: Caution, 2 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.
Which is more widely used, Ollama or llama.cpp?
By GitHub stars: Ollama 185,623, llama.cpp 133,105. Adoption score (percentile among all 52 tracked tools): Ollama 81, llama.cpp 78. Stars are one public signal and do not measure real-world use.
Which licences do Ollama and llama.cpp use?
Ollama: MIT; llama.cpp: MIT. Read each licence text before commercial use.
Should I pick Ollama or llama.cpp?
Pick Ollama if you want the more widely adopted option (adoption 81); you rely on thorough README docs (docs 69 vs 29). Pick llama.cpp if recent activity and releases matter most to you (maintenance 83). This comes from measured public data and licences only, not from hands-on testing.
Full comparison table, every criterion
| Ollamaollama/ollama | llama.cppggml-org/llama.cpp | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 73 | 68 |
| Rank | #2 overall · #1 in use case | #9 overall · #4 in use case |
| Maintenance (30%) | 67 | 83 |
| Adoption (30%) | 81 | 78 |
| Docs (20%) | 69 | 29 |
| Community (20%) | not measured | not measured |
| Safety | Caution
| Caution
|
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Open source | Open source | Open source |
| Language | Go | C++ |
| Stars | 185,623 | 133,105 |
| Last push | ||
| Type | AI tool | AI tool |
| Runs locally | yes (README: "curl -fsSL https://ollama.com/install.sh | sh") | yes (README: "curl -LsSf https://llama.app/install.sh | sh") |
| Hosted option | unknown | unknown |
Get the board every Monday
One email a week: the new top 10, the biggest score changes and every safety label that changed.
Free. Double opt-in: you confirm by email first, unsubscribe in one click.