Cua vs screenpipe
Side-by-side comparison of two AI agent tools
Short answer
- Cua is growing faster: +2,970 GitHub stars in the last 30 days vs +210 for screenpipe.
- Pick Cua for: scale computer-use 2.0 with open-source drivers, cross-OS fleets, and benchmarks for training, evaluation. Pick screenpipe for: yC (S26) | Open Computer History | Record your screen continuously locally and provide context to your agents.
From GitHub data refreshed daily.
C
Cuaopen-source
Scale computer-use 2.0 with open-source drivers, cross-OS fleets, and benchmarks for training, evaluation, and data generation.
s
screenpipeopen-source
YC (S26) | Open Computer History | Record your screen continuously locally and provide context to your agents (Claude, Codex, Openclaw, Hermes, Runner...)
Metrics
| Cua | screenpipe | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 27.7k | 21.8k |
| Star velocity /mo | 3.0k | 210 |
| Commits (90d) | 1.4k | 2.8k |
| Releases (6m) | 10 | 10 |
| Overall score | 0.9092592394174208 | 0.8133409649144364 |
FAQ
- Which is more popular, Cua or screenpipe?
- Cua has more GitHub stars (27,747 vs 21,797).
- Which is more actively developed, Cua or screenpipe?
- screenpipe had more commits in the last 90 days (2,791 vs 1,409).
- Should I use Cua or screenpipe?
- Compare their capabilities, limitations and "best for" notes above. Both are open source, so trying each on a small task is the fastest way to decide.