Graft vs HyperFrames
Side-by-side comparison of two AI agent tools
Short answer
- HyperFrames is growing faster: +14,710 GitHub stars in the last 30 days vs +870 for Graft.
- Pick Graft for: turbocharge Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Gemini & every coding agent: faster, cheaper, with contextual. Pick HyperFrames for: write HTML.
From GitHub data refreshed daily.
G
Graftopen-source
Turbocharge Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Gemini & every coding agent: faster, cheaper, with contextual understanding specific to your codebase.
H
HyperFramesopen-source
Write HTML. Render video. Built for agents.
Metrics
| Graft | HyperFrames | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 9.5k | 56.1k |
| Star velocity /mo | 870 | 14.7k |
| Commits (90d) | 506 | 3.0k |
| Releases (6m) | 0 | 10 |
| Downloads (30d, npm + PyPI) | — | 1.7M |
| Overall score | 0.7068809558403568 | 0.94184515668165 |
FAQ
- Which is more popular, Graft or HyperFrames?
- HyperFrames has more GitHub stars (56,104 vs 9,520).
- Which is more actively developed, Graft or HyperFrames?
- HyperFrames had more commits in the last 90 days (2,970 vs 506).
- Should I use Graft or HyperFrames?
- 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.