harald/zeroclaw
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 3

docs(readme): restore benchmark comparison table and image

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Chummy 2026-02-18 18:17:23 +08:00
parent 3b0133596c
commit 8d0099c12e
1 changed files with 19 additions and 3 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

22
README.md
View file

@ -60,11 +60,27 @@ Built by students and members of the Harvard, MIT, and Sundai.Club communities.
- **Fully swappable:** core systems are traits (providers, channels, tools, memory, tunnels).
- **No lock-in:** OpenAI-compatible provider support + pluggable custom endpoints.
## Benchmark Snapshot (Reproducible)
## Benchmark Snapshot (ZeroClaw vs OpenClaw, Reproducible)
Benchmark claims can drift as code and toolchains evolve, so this section focuses on reproducible local measurement.
Local machine quick benchmark (macOS arm64, Feb 2026) normalized for 0.8GHz edge hardware.
Measure your current build locally:
| | OpenClaw | NanoBot | PicoClaw | ZeroClaw 🦀 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| **Language** | TypeScript | Python | Go | **Rust** |
| **RAM** | > 1GB | > 100MB | < 10MB | **< 5MB** |
| **Startup (0.8GHz core)** | > 500s | > 30s | < 1s | **< 10ms** |
| **Binary Size** | ~28MB (dist) | N/A (Scripts) | ~8MB | **3.4 MB** |
| **Cost** | Mac Mini $599 | Linux SBC ~$50 | Linux Board $10 | **Any hardware $10** |
> Notes: ZeroClaw results measured with `/usr/bin/time -l` on release builds. OpenClaw requires Node.js runtime (~390MB overhead). PicoClaw and ZeroClaw are static binaries.
<p align="center">
<img src="zero-claw.jpeg" alt="ZeroClaw vs OpenClaw Comparison" width="800" />
</p>
### Reproducible local measurement
Benchmark claims can drift as code and toolchains evolve, so always measure your current build locally:
```bash
cargo build --release