Graft vs Graft
The two are close in size: 10.5k stars for Graft, 10.5k for Graft. Over the days we have tracked them Graft moved +2342% and Graft +116.2%, so Graft is growing faster right now.
Neither one leads on the six capability axes, so the choice comes down to which of them fits the way you already work.
Stars and commit dates come from our own daily tracking. The six axes are read off each project's documentation by our review pipeline, so they describe what a project says about itself, not what we measured in its code.
Where they stand today
Persists a deterministic, human-readable context graph as markdown files inside the repo (no embeddings or external index), so agents can follow real files and share an up-to-date code understanding via git.
- Stars
- 10.5k
- Tracked growth
- +2342%
- Maturity
- ●●●●●
- Last commit
- 18h ago
- Language
- TypeScript
- License
- MIT
- Cost to run
- Your API key; provider billing applies.
Writes a readable, linked markdown graph of your code (no embeddings or external index), letting agents use a local, regenerable map rather than re-exploring the repo each run.
- Stars
- 10.5k
- Tracked growth
- +116.2%
- Maturity
- ●●●●●
- Last commit
- 18h ago
- Language
- TypeScript
- License
- MIT
- Cost to run
- Your API key, per-use
Six axes, head to head
Each axis runs 0 to 5. The label under a score is what that project's own docs claim, not a category average.
| Axis | Graft | Graft |
|---|---|---|
Context depth How much of your codebase it sees before it answers: the open diff, the diff plus related files, or the whole repository. | ●●●●● Whole-repo graph | ●●●●● Whole-repo analysis |
Noise control How it keeps output volume down — severity thresholds, deduplication, incremental runs over new commits only. | ●●●●● Ranking & checks | ●●●●● Minimal filters |
Customization How far it bends to your team: custom rules, prompts, style guides, per-path config. | ●●●●● Config & flags | ●●●●● Config options |
Privacy Whether your code stays on your own infrastructure: fully local, self-hostable, or cloud API only. | ●●●●● Self-hostable | ●●●●● Fully local possible |
Model freedom Whether you can point it at any provider, or it is wired to one. | ●●●●● Bring-your-key | ●●●●● Bring-your-own-model |
Setup ease What it takes to get a first useful run out of it. | ●●●●● One-command init | ●●●●● Two-command setup |
Which one to pick
Pick Graft if…
Easy setup — one-command init builds a local, versionable code-graph and wires directly into coding agents (Claude Code et al.) to cut tokens, tool calls, and latency.
Pick Graft if…
Efficiency-first — pick Graft when you want much faster and cheaper agent runs (often with equal or better correctness) by providing a repo-wide local node graph that agents can read directly.
What people want from each one
NanoNets/Graft
trailhq/Graft
Questions people ask
Is Graft better than Graft?
Neither one leads on the six capability axes, so the choice comes down to which of them fits the way you already work. Graft is worth picking when easy setup — one-command init builds a local, versionable code-graph and wires directly into coding agents (Claude Code et al.) to cut tokens, tool calls, and latency.
Which of Graft and Graft keeps my code private?
Graft: Self-hostable (4/5). Graft: Fully local possible (5/5).
What does each one cost to run?
Graft: Your API key; provider billing applies.. Graft: Your API key, per-use.
Full profiles: NanoNets/Graft and trailhq/Graft. Everything else in Codebase context.