garak vs strapi-plugin-embeddings
Side-by-side comparison to help you choose.
| Feature | garak | strapi-plugin-embeddings |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Repository | Repository |
| UnfragileRank | 22/100 | 32/100 |
| Adoption | 0 | 0 |
| Quality | 0 | 0 |
| Ecosystem |
| 0 |
| 1 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 11 decomposed | 9 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
Automatically generates vector embeddings for Strapi content entries using configurable AI providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, or local models). Hooks into Strapi's lifecycle events to trigger embedding generation on content creation/update, storing dense vectors in PostgreSQL via pgvector extension. Supports batch processing and selective field embedding based on content type configuration.
Unique: Strapi-native plugin that integrates embeddings directly into content lifecycle hooks rather than requiring external ETL pipelines; supports multiple embedding providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, local) with unified configuration interface and pgvector as first-class storage backend
vs alternatives: Tighter Strapi integration than generic embedding services, eliminating the need for separate indexing pipelines while maintaining provider flexibility
Executes semantic similarity search against embedded content using vector distance calculations (cosine, L2) in PostgreSQL pgvector. Accepts natural language queries, converts them to embeddings via the same provider used for content, and returns ranked results based on vector similarity. Supports filtering by content type, status, and custom metadata before similarity ranking.
Unique: Integrates semantic search directly into Strapi's query API rather than requiring separate search infrastructure; uses pgvector's native distance operators (cosine, L2) with optional IVFFlat indexing for performance, supporting both simple and filtered queries
vs alternatives: Eliminates external search service dependencies (Elasticsearch, Algolia) for Strapi users, reducing operational complexity and cost while keeping search logic co-located with content
Provides a unified interface for embedding generation across multiple AI providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, local models via Ollama/Hugging Face). Abstracts provider-specific API signatures, authentication, rate limiting, and response formats into a single configuration-driven system. Allows switching providers without code changes by updating environment variables or Strapi admin panel settings.
strapi-plugin-embeddings scores higher at 32/100 vs garak at 22/100. garak leads on adoption and quality, while strapi-plugin-embeddings is stronger on ecosystem.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Unique: Implements provider abstraction layer with unified error handling, retry logic, and configuration management; supports both cloud (OpenAI, Anthropic) and self-hosted (Ollama, HF Inference) models through a single interface
vs alternatives: More flexible than single-provider solutions (like Pinecone's OpenAI-only approach) while simpler than generic LLM frameworks (LangChain) by focusing specifically on embedding provider switching
Stores and indexes embeddings directly in PostgreSQL using the pgvector extension, leveraging native vector data types and similarity operators (cosine, L2, inner product). Automatically creates IVFFlat or HNSW indices for efficient approximate nearest neighbor search at scale. Integrates with Strapi's database layer to persist embeddings alongside content metadata in a single transactional store.
Unique: Uses PostgreSQL pgvector as primary vector store rather than external vector DB, enabling transactional consistency and SQL-native querying; supports both IVFFlat (faster, approximate) and HNSW (slower, more accurate) indices with automatic index management
vs alternatives: Eliminates operational complexity of managing separate vector databases (Pinecone, Weaviate) for Strapi users while maintaining ACID guarantees that external vector DBs cannot provide
Allows fine-grained configuration of which fields from each Strapi content type should be embedded, supporting text concatenation, field weighting, and selective embedding. Configuration is stored in Strapi's plugin settings and applied during content lifecycle hooks. Supports nested field selection (e.g., embedding both title and author.name from related entries) and dynamic field filtering based on content status or visibility.
Unique: Provides Strapi-native configuration UI for field mapping rather than requiring code changes; supports content-type-specific strategies and nested field selection through a declarative configuration model
vs alternatives: More flexible than generic embedding tools that treat all content uniformly, allowing Strapi users to optimize embedding quality and cost per content type
Provides bulk operations to re-embed existing content entries in batches, useful for model upgrades, provider migrations, or fixing corrupted embeddings. Implements chunked processing to avoid memory exhaustion and includes progress tracking, error recovery, and dry-run mode. Can be triggered via Strapi admin UI or API endpoint with configurable batch size and concurrency.
Unique: Implements chunked batch processing with progress tracking and error recovery specifically for Strapi content; supports dry-run mode and selective reindexing by content type or status
vs alternatives: Purpose-built for Strapi bulk operations rather than generic batch tools, with awareness of content types, statuses, and Strapi's data model
Integrates with Strapi's content lifecycle events (create, update, publish, unpublish) to automatically trigger embedding generation or deletion. Hooks are registered at plugin initialization and execute synchronously or asynchronously based on configuration. Supports conditional hooks (e.g., only embed published content) and custom pre/post-processing logic.
Unique: Leverages Strapi's native lifecycle event system to trigger embeddings without external webhooks or polling; supports both synchronous and asynchronous execution with conditional logic
vs alternatives: Tighter integration than webhook-based approaches, eliminating external infrastructure and latency while maintaining Strapi's transactional guarantees
Stores and tracks metadata about each embedding including generation timestamp, embedding model version, provider used, and content hash. Enables detection of stale embeddings when content changes or models are upgraded. Metadata is queryable for auditing, debugging, and analytics purposes.
Unique: Automatically tracks embedding provenance (model, provider, timestamp) alongside vectors, enabling version-aware search and stale embedding detection without manual configuration
vs alternatives: Provides built-in audit trail for embeddings, whereas most vector databases treat embeddings as opaque and unversioned
+1 more capabilities