cozodb/cozo vs nautechsystems/nautilus_trader
Both showing Mixed signals — pick on fit, not health
As of September 2026, cozo and nautilus_trader both show mixed maintenance signals. cozo last saw a commit 1 year ago with 15+ active contributors, while nautilus_trader was committed to 1 week ago with 5+ active contributors. cozo is MPL-2.0-licensed while nautilus_trader is LGPL-3.0-licensed. Neither has known critical or high-severity CVEs in its dependency tree.
Informational only. RepoPilot summarises public signals at the time of analysis. Not professional, security, or legal advice.
cozodb/cozo
Stale — last commit 2y ago
No blocking maintenance, license, or known-CVE signals were found; still verify the package version and fit.
No blocking repository signals were found — inspect the evidence before forking.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
last commit was 2y ago; Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10
- ⚠Stale — last commit 2y ago
- ⚠Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 72% of recent commits
- ⚠Scorecard: marked unmaintained (0/10)
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓15 active contributors
- ✓MPL-2.0 licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
What would improve this?
- •Deploy as-is Mixed to Healthy if: 1 commit in the last 180 days
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against dependency CVEs from deps.dev and OpenSSF Scorecard
nautechsystems/nautilus_trader
Single-maintainer risk — review before adopting
copyleft license (LGPL-3.0) — review compatibility; top contributor handles 94% of recent commits
No blocking repository signals were found — inspect the evidence before forking.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
No blocking repository-level signals were found; deployment review is still required.
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 94% of recent commits
- ⚠LGPL-3.0 is copyleft — check downstream compatibility
- ✓Last commit today
- ✓5 active contributors
- ✓LGPL-3.0 licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
What would improve this?
- •Use as dependency Concerns to Mixed if: relicense under MIT/Apache-2.0 (rare for established libs)
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against dependency CVEs from deps.dev and OpenSSF Scorecard
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| cozo | nautilus_trader | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 4,104 | 28,330 |
| Last commit | 1y ago | 13d ago |
| License | MPL-2.0 | LGPL-3.0 |
| Open issues | 50 | 129 |
| Has tests | ✓ | ✓ |
| Has CI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 9% | 14% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | A | A |
| Cycles | 0 | 0 |
| Bottom-line | Mixed signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? cozodb/cozo · nautechsystems/nautilus_trader
Ask AI about cozodb/cozo vs nautechsystems/nautilus_trader
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.