Comparison

humux vs.
ZeroClaw

How humux compares to ZeroClaw — the Rust-based agent with 30+ channels, hardware I/O, and OS-level sandboxing.

ZeroClaw Labs — 32k ★ — Rust — Apache 2.0

Feature humux ZeroClaw
Self-hosted
Single container deploy
Messaging channels 3 30+
Telegram (per-agent bots)
WhatsApp Via bridge
CLI channel
Email (IMAP/SMTP)
Calendar (CalDAV)
Contacts (CardDAV)
Persistent memory
Voice (STT + TTS)
Markdown skills
Subagents
Scheduled tasks / cron
Web search
Browser automation
Encrypted secrets vault
Granular permissions
Admin web UI
LLM providers 6 ~20
Hardware I/O (GPIO/I2C/SPI)
OS-level sandboxing

Info gathered from public repos and docs. Products evolve — check each project for current state.

🦀

Where ZeroClaw wins

  • Rust single binary — tiny footprint, fast startup, no runtime dependencies
  • 30+ messaging channels including Matrix, IRC, and XMPP
  • Hardware I/O support (GPIO, I2C, SPI) for Raspberry Pi and embedded devices
  • OS-level sandboxing via Landlock, Bubblewrap, and Docker
  • SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) engine for structured workflows
⚡

Where humux wins

  • Built-in calendar and contacts (CalDAV/CardDAV) — not in ZeroClaw
  • CLI channel with resumable sessions and WAL persistence
  • Encrypted two-tier secrets vault (ZeroClaw stores credentials in config)
  • Four-tier memory with importance-based forgetting and deduplication
  • Richer Python ecosystem for email/calendar/voice libraries

The bottom line

Choose ZeroClaw if you want the smallest possible footprint, hardware I/O for embedded devices, or OS-level sandboxing. Choose humux if you want built-in calendar and contacts, an encrypted vault, and the deeper library support Python provides for productivity integrations.

← See the full comparison table

Run your own personal AI

One container. All integrations built in. Your data stays yours.

Quick Start Star on GitHub