Decocms vs Kubernetes · Flux159
Kubernetes · Flux159 scores 7 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 ›
| Decocms | Kubernetes · Flux159 | what it means | |
|---|---|---|---|
| tashan score | 77 | 84 | upkeep + freshness, gated by adoption |
| Adoption evidence | 29k/wk | 18k/wk | the raw public signal the score came from |
| Last release | active | active | npm publish or repo push |
| Upkeep | 73 | 99 | 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 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
Decocms
claude mcp add decocms -- npx -y decocmsKubernetes · Flux159
claude mcp add kubernetes -- npx -y mcp-server-kubernetesNeither 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: Decocms · Kubernetes · Flux159.