d4vinci/scrapling vs sanic-org/sanic
sanic-org/sanic shows stronger signals overall
As of September 2026, sanic shows healthier maintenance signals than scrapling. sanic rates Healthy overall while scrapling rates Mixed. scrapling was committed to 1 week ago with 7+ active contributors, while sanic last saw a commit 1 month ago with 33+ active contributors. scrapling is BSD-3-Clause-licensed while sanic is MIT-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.
d4vinci/scrapling
Single-maintainer risk — review before adopting
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.
Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10; 8 cyclic import chains — pervasive coupling
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 88% of recent commits
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit 3d ago
- ✓7 active contributors
- ✓BSD-3-Clause licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
What would improve this?
- •Deploy as-is Mixed to Healthy if: bring "Branch-Protection" to ≥3/10 (see scorecard report)
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against dependency CVEs from deps.dev and OpenSSF Scorecard
sanic-org/sanic
Strong maintenance signals
dependency CVE scan unavailable
No blocking repository signals were found — inspect the evidence before forking.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 2/10; Scorecard "Token-Permissions" is 0/10…
- ⚠Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 55% of recent commits
- ⚠Scorecard: dangerous CI workflow (0/10)
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (2/10)
- ✓Last commit 3w ago
- ✓33+ active contributors
- ✓MIT licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
What would improve this?
- •Deploy as-is Mixed to Healthy if: bring "Branch-Protection" to ≥3/10 (see scorecard report)
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against OpenSSF Scorecard
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| scrapling | sanic | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 78,796 | 18,643 |
| Last commit | 12d ago | 1mo ago |
| License | BSD-3-Clause | MIT |
| Open issues | 15 | 146 |
| Has tests | ✓ | ✓ |
| Has CI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 98% | 62% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | C | — |
| Cycles | 8 | — |
| Bottom-line | Mixed signals | Healthy signals |
Want the full analysis? d4vinci/scrapling · sanic-org/sanic
Ask AI about d4vinci/scrapling vs sanic-org/sanic
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.