Kubernetes · containers vs Ziggs
Kubernetes · containers scores 13 points higher on the same evidence, which is a real separation rather than noise. 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 ›
| Kubernetes · containers | Ziggs | what it means | |
|---|---|---|---|
| tashan score | 84 | 71 | upkeep + freshness, gated by adoption |
| Adoption evidence | 15k/wk | 2k/wk | the raw public signal the score came from |
| Last release | active | active | npm publish or repo push |
| Upkeep | 99 | 73 | cadence, maintainers, status |
| Expertise grade | not graded | not graded | an LLM read of its own documentation against a fixed rubric |
| Security audit | no known advisories | no known advisories, no build provenance | a summary — the full audit, free, is on each dossier |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | — | |
| Maintainers | more than one | one primary | bus-factor risk |
Install either
Kubernetes · containers
claude mcp add kubernetes-mcp-server -- npx -y kubernetes-mcp-serverZiggs
claude mcp add ziggs -- npx -y @ziggs-ai/ziggs-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: Kubernetes · containers · Ziggs.