Ato vs Blockrun
Ato scores 3 points higher — a narrow lead. Read the evidence rows below before treating it as decisive. Both are measured the same way, on the same day, from public evidence only — so this is a comparison of two measurements rather than two marketing pages. How we measure ›
| Ato | Blockrun | what it means | |
|---|---|---|---|
| tashan score | 75 | 72 | upkeep + freshness, gated by adoption |
| Adoption evidence | 83k/wk | 1k/wk | the raw public signal the score came from |
| Last release | active | active | npm publish or repo push |
| Upkeep | 66 | 86 | cadence, maintainers, status |
| Expertise grade | not graded | solid | an LLM read of its own documentation against a fixed rubric |
| Security audit | no known advisories, no build provenance | no known advisories | a summary — the full audit, free, is on each dossier |
| Licence | — | MIT | |
| Maintainers | one primary | more than one | bus-factor risk |
Install either
Ato
claude mcp add ato -- npx -y ato-mcpBlockrun
claude mcp add blockrun -- npx -y @blockrun/mcpNeither score is a security verdict — "well maintained" and "nothing known is wrong" are different claims, which is why the audit is a separate row and never folded into the number. The full audit for each — the advisory ids, the version that fixes them and anything that runs at install time — is free on its own page: Ato · Blockrun.