Head to head
aeqi vs OpenClaw
The facts side by side — model held constant. No performance verdict until traces are published under the pre-registered method.
aeqi builds one of the harnesses measured here. This board is in method preview and pre-registration — no performance scores are published yet, and we lead with our own losses, not our wins. Read the method & charter →
| Attribute | aeqi | OpenClaw |
|---|---|---|
| Maintainer | aeqi | openclaw |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Category | Coding + general | General-purpose agent |
| Headless run | Yes — `aeqi run` (single-shot, git-stamped version) | Yes — container mode (`--container` / OPENCLAW_CONTAINER) |
| Native OpenRouter | ||
| Determinism | Pinnable via git commit; temperature override is a known gap (defaults high) — disclosed. | Container per run is native. Pin via Docker tag/commit; note the built-in auto-updater can drift. |
| Benchmark result | Not yet measured | Not yet measured |
Questions
- Is aeqi better than OpenClaw?
- The aeqi Harness Index does not publish a performance verdict for aeqi vs OpenClaw yet — scores land only with published traces under the pre-registered method. What this page compares are the verifiable facts: license, category, headless capability, and whether each can be pinned to one shared model for a fair run.
- Can aeqi and OpenClaw be benchmarked fairly against each other?
- Yes — both document native OpenRouter support, so we can point them at one identical pinned model and attribute any difference to the scaffold, not the model.