| Ecosystem | 0 | 1 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 11 decomposed | 12 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Garak scans LLMs for vulnerabilities by routing prompts through a modular harness system that abstracts different model providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Ollama, vLLM, etc.) behind a unified interface. Each harness handles authentication, rate limiting, and response parsing for its target model, allowing the same vulnerability test suite to run against any LLM without code changes. The architecture uses a plugin-based loader pattern to dynamically instantiate harnesses at runtime based on configuration.
Unique: Uses a harness abstraction layer that decouples vulnerability tests from model provider implementations, enabling the same test suite to run against OpenAI, Anthropic, open-source models, and custom endpoints without modification. Most competitors either target specific providers or require test rewrites per model.
vs alternatives: Garak's harness-based design allows security teams to test heterogeneous LLM deployments with a single tool, whereas alternatives like Promptfoo focus on prompt evaluation and Rebuff targets specific attack patterns.
Garak organizes vulnerability tests as 'probes' — modular test units that generate adversarial prompts, send them to a target LLM via a harness, and evaluate responses against detection criteria. Probes are organized into taxonomies (e.g., 'jailbreak', 'prompt-injection', 'hallucination') and can be composed into test suites. Each probe implements a generate() method that produces test prompts (often using templates or programmatic construction) and a detect() method that classifies model responses as vulnerable or safe based on heuristics, keyword matching, or semantic similarity.
Unique: Implements a two-stage probe architecture (generate + detect) that separates test prompt creation from response evaluation, allowing probes to be reused across different detection strategies and enabling custom detection logic without modifying prompt generation. This is more flexible than monolithic test frameworks that couple prompt and evaluation logic.
vs alternatives: Garak's probe taxonomy provides broader coverage of LLM vulnerabilities (jailbreaks, prompt injection, hallucination, bias) compared to narrower tools like Rebuff (jailbreak-focused) or Promptfoo (prompt optimization-focused).
Garak exposes both a command-line interface (CLI) and a Python API for executing vulnerability scans. The CLI uses argparse to parse configuration and invoke the orchestrator, making garak accessible to non-programmers. The Python API provides classes and functions for programmatic test execution, enabling integration into Python-based workflows, notebooks, and CI/CD pipelines. Both interfaces share the same underlying orchestrator, ensuring consistent behavior. The architecture uses a facade pattern to abstract CLI and API differences, allowing users to choose the interface that best fits their workflow.
Unique: Provides both CLI and Python API interfaces backed by the same orchestrator, allowing users to choose the interface that best fits their workflow (command-line for one-off scans, Python API for automation). The facade pattern ensures consistent behavior across interfaces.
vs alternatives: Garak's dual interface (CLI + API) is more flexible than CLI-only tools (like some security scanners) or API-only tools (like some Python libraries), enabling broader adoption across different user types and workflows.
Garak provides a configuration-driven orchestration layer that chains together harnesses, probes, and detectors into executable test suites. Users define test runs in YAML/JSON config files specifying which models to test, which probes to run, and how to aggregate results. The orchestrator handles sequential or parallel probe execution (depending on harness concurrency support), collects results, and generates structured reports (JSON, CSV, HTML) with vulnerability metrics, model comparisons, and risk summaries. The architecture uses a run manager pattern to track test state and enable resumable/incremental scanning.
Unique: Uses a declarative YAML/JSON configuration model to define test suites, allowing non-programmers to compose complex multi-model security tests without writing code. The run manager pattern enables resumable scans and incremental result collection, reducing cost and time for large-scale audits.
vs alternatives: Garak's configuration-driven orchestration is more flexible than CLI-only tools and provides better auditability than programmatic test frameworks, making it suitable for compliance-heavy environments.
Garak's probes generate adversarial prompts using multiple strategies: template-based (filling placeholders in predefined jailbreak/injection patterns), programmatic (constructing prompts via Python logic to vary parameters), and potentially LLM-based (using auxiliary models to generate novel attack prompts). Probes can combine strategies — e.g., a jailbreak probe might use templates for known attacks and programmatic generation for variations. The generation layer abstracts prompt construction, allowing probes to focus on detection logic and enabling reuse of generation strategies across multiple probes.
Unique: Separates prompt generation from detection, allowing probes to use multiple generation strategies (templates, programmatic, LLM-based) and enabling reuse of generation logic across different detection criteria. This modularity makes it easier to add new attack patterns without duplicating generation code.
vs alternatives: Garak's multi-strategy generation approach is more comprehensive than single-strategy tools; it supports both curated jailbreak templates and programmatic variation, whereas competitors often use only one approach.
Garak's detection layer evaluates LLM responses against multiple criteria to classify them as vulnerable or safe. Detection strategies include keyword/regex matching (e.g., detecting refusal phrases or harmful content keywords), semantic similarity (comparing responses to known vulnerable outputs using embeddings), classifier-based detection (using auxiliary ML models to score response safety), and custom heuristics. Probes compose these strategies — e.g., a jailbreak probe might use keyword matching for obvious bypasses and semantic similarity for subtle ones. The detection layer is decoupled from prompt generation, allowing the same response to be evaluated by multiple detectors.
Unique: Implements a composable detection architecture where multiple detection strategies (keyword, semantic, classifier) can be combined per probe, allowing fine-grained control over false positive/negative tradeoffs. Most competitors use single detection strategies, making them less flexible for diverse vulnerability types.
vs alternatives: Garak's multi-strategy detection is more robust than keyword-only tools (like simple regex scanners) and more flexible than single-model approaches (like classifier-only tools), enabling better accuracy across diverse attack types.
Garak organizes vulnerabilities into a hierarchical taxonomy (e.g., 'jailbreak', 'prompt-injection', 'hallucination', 'bias', 'privacy') with subtypes and specific probes for each category. The taxonomy is exposed as a discoverable API — users can list available probes, filter by vulnerability type, and understand the coverage of each category. The taxonomy structure enables organized reporting (grouping results by vulnerability class) and helps users understand which attack vectors are tested. The architecture uses a registry pattern to dynamically load probes and organize them by taxonomy.
Unique: Provides a discoverable, hierarchical taxonomy of LLM vulnerabilities with explicit probe mappings, allowing users to understand test coverage and plan audits systematically. Most competitors lack explicit taxonomy organization, making it harder to assess what vulnerabilities are tested.
vs alternatives: Garak's taxonomy-based organization makes it easier for non-security experts to understand vulnerability scope and plan comprehensive audits, whereas competitors often require deep knowledge of attack types.
Garak supports scanning multiple LLMs in a single test run, aggregating results across models to enable comparative analysis. The orchestrator manages harness instances for each model, routes probes to all harnesses, and collects results in a unified format. Aggregation includes per-model vulnerability counts, cross-model comparisons (e.g., 'Model A is vulnerable to X, Model B is not'), and overall risk rankings. The architecture uses a result collector pattern to normalize outputs from different harnesses and enable flexible aggregation strategies.
Unique: Normalizes results across heterogeneous LLM providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, open-source, custom) into a unified format, enabling direct comparative analysis without manual result reconciliation. The result collector pattern abstracts provider-specific output formats, making it easy to add new models.
vs alternatives: Garak's multi-model aggregation is more comprehensive than single-model tools and more flexible than provider-specific benchmarks, enabling fair comparisons across diverse LLM ecosystems.
+3 more capabilities
Crawls 11+ heterogeneous platforms (Zhihu, Weibo, Bilibili, Twitter, Reddit, HackerNews, etc.) and RSS feeds using platform-specific scrapers, normalizes disparate data schemas into a unified NewsItem model, and deduplicates content across sources using fuzzy title matching and URL canonicalization. The system maintains platform-specific metadata (rank, heat value, engagement metrics) while presenting a single normalized feed, enabling cross-platform trend detection that would be invisible within individual platform silos.
Unique: Implements platform-specific crawler modules with unified NewsItem schema and fuzzy deduplication across 11+ heterogeneous sources (Chinese + international), rather than relying on single-platform APIs or generic RSS parsing. Maintains platform-specific metadata (rank × 0.6 + frequency × 0.3 + platform hot value × 0.1) for weighted hotspot scoring.
vs alternatives: Covers more platforms (especially Chinese social media) with deeper metadata extraction than generic RSS aggregators, and provides unified deduplication across sources unlike single-platform monitoring tools.
Implements a multi-stage filtering pipeline that matches news items against user-defined keywords using regex patterns, required word lists, and excluded word lists. The system applies frequency-based scoring (keyword occurrence count) combined with platform hotspot weights to rank filtered results. Configuration is stored in frequency_words.txt with support for regex patterns, AND/OR/NOT boolean operators, and per-keyword weighting. Filtering occurs at collection time (reducing storage) and again at report generation time (enabling dynamic reconfiguration without re-crawling).
Unique: Combines regex pattern matching with frequency-based scoring and platform hotspot weighting (rank × 0.6 + frequency × 0.3 + platform hot value × 0.1) in a two-stage pipeline (collection-time and report-time filtering). Supports dynamic reconfiguration without re-crawling by applying filters at report generation.
TrendRadar scores higher at 58/100 vs garak at 22/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
vs alternatives: More flexible than simple keyword matching (supports regex and boolean logic) and more efficient than semantic filtering (no LLM overhead), making it suitable for real-time filtering at scale.
Detects newly emerged topics by comparing current crawl results against historical data stored in the system. Topics are marked as 🆕 (new) if they appear for the first time in the current crawl or if their hotspot rank increased significantly compared to previous crawls. The system tracks topic emergence velocity (how quickly a topic rises in rankings) and flags topics with unusual acceleration. New topic detection is performed at report generation time, enabling dynamic detection without re-crawling. The system maintains a historical hotspot index for comparison.
Unique: Detects new topics by comparing current hotspot rankings against historical data, marking topics with significant rank increases as 🆕. Tracks emergence velocity to distinguish breaking news from sustained trends.
vs alternatives: More efficient than semantic similarity detection (no LLM overhead) and more accurate than simple first-appearance detection (accounts for re-emerging topics), but requires historical baseline data.
Provides a web-based UI for editing TrendRadar configuration files (config.yaml, frequency_words.txt, timeline.yaml) with real-time validation and preview. The editor supports: (1) syntax highlighting for YAML and regex, (2) validation of keyword patterns (regex compilation check), (3) preview of filtered results based on current keyword configuration, (4) drag-and-drop channel configuration, (5) schedule preview (shows next 10 execution times). Changes are validated before saving, preventing configuration errors. The editor is optional; users can edit config files directly.
Unique: Provides web-based configuration editor with real-time validation, regex preview, and schedule visualization. Enables non-technical users to configure TrendRadar without editing YAML files.
vs alternatives: More user-friendly than manual YAML editing and provides validation feedback, but adds operational complexity compared to file-based configuration.
Integrates LiteLLM to provide vendor-agnostic AI analysis and summarization of filtered news items. Users configure their preferred LLM provider (OpenAI, Anthropic, Ollama, local models, etc.) once in config.yaml, and the system automatically routes analysis requests to that provider. The AI analysis capability includes: (1) automated summarization of long articles into key points, (2) sentiment analysis (positive/negative/neutral), (3) trend prediction based on historical patterns, and (4) custom analysis prompts. Analysis results are cached to avoid redundant API calls and can be pushed directly to notification channels.
Unique: Uses LiteLLM abstraction layer to support any LLM provider (OpenAI, Anthropic, Ollama, local models) with single configuration, enabling provider switching without code changes. Caches analysis results to reduce redundant API calls and costs.
vs alternatives: More flexible than hardcoded OpenAI integration (supports any LiteLLM provider) and cheaper than dedicated sentiment analysis APIs (can use local models), but slower than rule-based sentiment analysis.
Leverages LiteLLM to translate news content from source languages (primarily Chinese) to target languages (English, etc.) on-demand. The system detects source language automatically (via langdetect or similar), caches translations to avoid re-translating identical content, and batches translation requests to reduce API calls. Translations are stored alongside original content, enabling bilingual reports and multi-language notification delivery. Translation can be triggered at collection time (all news) or report time (only filtered news).
Unique: Implements provider-agnostic translation via LiteLLM with automatic language detection, content-based caching, and batch request optimization. Stores translations alongside originals for bilingual report generation.
vs alternatives: More flexible than dedicated translation APIs (supports any LiteLLM provider) and cheaper than commercial translation services when using local models, but slower than specialized translation APIs.
Implements a notification abstraction layer supporting 9+ delivery channels (WeChat, WeWork, Feishu, Telegram, Email, ntfy, Bark, Slack, etc.). Each channel has a provider-specific formatter that converts normalized news items into channel-appropriate messages (e.g., WeChat card format, Telegram markdown, email HTML). The system batches notifications atomically—all news items for a report are sent as a single batch to each channel, ensuring consistency and reducing API calls. Message formatting respects channel constraints (character limits, attachment limits, etc.) and supports templating for customization.
Unique: Implements atomic message batching across 9+ heterogeneous channels with provider-specific formatters and constraint-aware truncation. Single configuration enables simultaneous delivery to WeChat, WeWork, Feishu, Telegram, Email, ntfy, Bark, Slack, etc. without code changes.
vs alternatives: Supports more channels (especially Chinese platforms like WeWork, Feishu) than generic notification services, and batching reduces API calls and spam compared to per-item notifications.
Exposes TrendRadar's data and analysis capabilities as an MCP server, enabling AI agents and LLM applications to query trends, perform analysis, and generate insights through natural language. The MCP server implements tools for: (1) querying filtered news by keyword/date/platform, (2) retrieving trend statistics and hotspot rankings, (3) running custom analysis on news subsets, (4) generating reports in various formats. Clients (Claude, other LLM agents) can invoke these tools via MCP protocol, enabling conversational exploration of trends without direct database access. The server maintains state across multiple requests, allowing multi-turn conversations about trends.
Unique: Implements full MCP server exposing trend data and analysis tools to LLM agents, enabling conversational queries and multi-turn analysis workflows. Maintains state across requests and supports complex tool invocations (filtering, analysis, report generation).
vs alternatives: Enables conversational access to trends (vs. API-only access) and integrates with LLM agent workflows (vs. standalone tools), but adds operational complexity compared to simple REST APIs.
+4 more capabilities