Multi Agent Orchestration
Top signal weightsIntegrations 0.16Package downloads 0.14Development activity 0.09Capabilities 0.08
Rank by intent
Balanced is the citeable default. The facts never change, only how the signals are weighted.
| # | Software | Score | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AgnoFramework and runtime for building and running secure, private multi-agent systems | 75 | low · 36%updating |
| 2 | Google Agent Development Kit | 74 | low · 29%updating |
| 3 | Pydantic AI | 67 | medium · 57%updating |
| 4 | LlamaIndex | 66 | medium · 63%updating |
| 5 | Haystack | 65 | medium · 54%updating |
| 6 | CrewAI | 61 | medium · 63%updating |
| 7 | AutoGen | 61 | low · 43%updating |
| 8 | MetaGPT | 55 | low · 21%updating |
| 9 | CAMEL | 55 | low · 38%updating |
| 10 | OpenAI Agents SDK | 33 | low · 26%updating |
Ranked by the Vioscale composite: independent signals, not user reviews. See the method.
Multi Agent Orchestration compared
Head-to-head on the attributes that matter here, with a source and date on every value.
- AgnovsGoogle Agent Development Kit75/74
- AgnovsPydantic AI75/67
- AgnovsLlamaIndex75/66
- AgnovsHaystack75/65
- AgnovsCrewAI75/61
- Google Agent Development KitvsPydantic AI74/67
- Google Agent Development KitvsLlamaIndex74/66
- Google Agent Development KitvsHaystack74/65
- CrewAIvsGoogle Agent Development Kit61/74
- LlamaIndexvsPydantic AI66/67