--- title: "paperless-gpt vs moby" type: "comparison" canonical_url: "https://www.graphcanon.com/compare/icereed-paperless-gpt-vs-moby-moby" tools: ["icereed-paperless-gpt", "moby-moby"] --- # paperless-gpt vs moby *GraphCanon updated Jul 15, 2026* ## Verdict Pick paperless-gpt when license: paperless-gpt is MIT, moby is Apache-2.0; pick moby when license: moby is Apache-2.0, paperless-gpt is MIT. [paperless-gpt](https://github.com/icereed/paperless-gpt) reports 2.5k GitHub stars, 185 forks, and 154 open issues, last pushed Jul 13, 2026. [moby](https://mobyproject.org/) has 72k stars, 19k forks, and 3.8k open issues, last pushed Jul 10, 2026. Figures are from public GitHub metadata via [paperless-gpt's repository](https://github.com/icereed/paperless-gpt) and [moby's repository](https://github.com/moby/moby). | | [paperless-gpt](/tools/icereed-paperless-gpt.md) | [moby](/tools/moby-moby.md) | | --- | --- | --- | | Tagline | Use LLMs and LLM Vision (OCR) to handle paperless-ngx - Document Digitalization powered by AI | The Moby Project - a collaborative project for the container ecosystem to assemble container-based systems | | Stars | 2,533 | 71,899 | | Forks | 185 | 19,126 | | Open issues | 154 | 3,821 | | Language | Go | Go | | Adopt for | - | - | | Persona | - | - | | Runtime | - | - | | License | MIT | Apache-2.0 | | Categories | Computer Vision, Inference & Serving, LLM Frameworks | Developer Tools, Inference & Serving, LLM Frameworks | ## Trust and health _Sourced signals - not a safety guarantee. No winner column._ | | [paperless-gpt](/tools/icereed-paperless-gpt.md) | [moby](/tools/moby-moby.md) | | --- | --- | --- | | Days since push | 2d | 1d | | Open issues (now) | 154 | 3.8k | | Owner type | User | Organization | | Full report | [trust report](/tools/icereed-paperless-gpt/trust.md) | [trust report](/tools/moby-moby/trust.md) | ## Choose when ### Choose paperless-gpt if… - License: paperless-gpt is MIT, moby is Apache-2.0. - Tags unique to paperless-gpt: ai, chatgpt, llm, mistral. - Also covers Computer Vision. ### Choose moby if… - License: moby is Apache-2.0, paperless-gpt is MIT. - Tags unique to moby: containers, docker, go, golang. - Also covers Developer Tools. ## When NOT to use paperless-gpt - Inference & Serving: Self-hosting rarely beats a hosted API on cost until you have steady, high-volume traffic. - LLM Frameworks: Avoid a framework for a single prompt-and-retrieve call; the abstraction can cost more than it saves. ## When NOT to use moby - Developer Tools: A gateway is overkill when you're pinned to a single provider and model. - Inference & Serving: Self-hosting rarely beats a hosted API on cost until you have steady, high-volume traffic. - LLM Frameworks: Avoid a framework for a single prompt-and-retrieve call; the abstraction can cost more than it saves. ## Common questions ### What is the difference between paperless-gpt and moby? paperless-gpt: Use LLMs and LLM Vision (OCR) to handle paperless-ngx - Document Digitalization powered by AI. moby: The Moby Project - a collaborative project for the container ecosystem to assemble container-based systems. See the comparison table for live GitHub stats and shared categories. ### When should I choose paperless-gpt over moby? Choose paperless-gpt over moby when License: paperless-gpt is MIT, moby is Apache-2.0; Tags unique to paperless-gpt: ai, chatgpt, llm, mistral; Also covers Computer Vision. ### When should I choose moby over paperless-gpt? Choose moby over paperless-gpt when License: moby is Apache-2.0, paperless-gpt is MIT; Tags unique to moby: containers, docker, go, golang; Also covers Developer Tools. ### When should I avoid paperless-gpt? Inference & Serving: Self-hosting rarely beats a hosted API on cost until you have steady, high-volume traffic. LLM Frameworks: Avoid a framework for a single prompt-and-retrieve call; the abstraction can cost more than it saves. ### When should I avoid moby? Developer Tools: A gateway is overkill when you're pinned to a single provider and model. Inference & Serving: Self-hosting rarely beats a hosted API on cost until you have steady, high-volume traffic. LLM Frameworks: Avoid a framework for a single prompt-and-retrieve call; the abstraction can cost more than it saves. ### Is paperless-gpt or moby more popular on GitHub? moby has more GitHub stars (71,899 vs 2,533). Stars measure visibility, not whether either tool fits your constraints. ### Are paperless-gpt and moby open source? Yes - both are open-source projects on GitHub (paperless-gpt: MIT, moby: Apache-2.0). ### Where can I find alternatives to paperless-gpt or moby? GraphCanon lists graph-backed alternatives at [paperless-gpt alternatives](/tools/icereed-paperless-gpt/alternatives) and [moby alternatives](/tools/moby-moby/alternatives) ([paperless-gpt markdown twin](/tools/icereed-paperless-gpt/alternatives.md), [moby markdown twin](/tools/moby-moby/alternatives.md)), ranked by typed relationship edges rather than popularity votes. ### Is there a machine-readable version of this comparison? Yes. The markdown twin at [this comparison](/compare/icereed-paperless-gpt-vs-moby-moby.md) mirrors this page for agents and LLM crawlers, with the same stats table and FAQ answers. ### Which is better maintained, paperless-gpt or moby? paperless-gpt: Very active. moby: Very active. Compare maintenance labels, days since push, and release cadence in the trust section below - stars alone do not measure maintenance. ### Where are the full trust reports for paperless-gpt and moby? GraphCanon publishes per-repo trust reports with dated maintenance, provenance, and scan summaries: [paperless-gpt trust report](/tools/icereed-paperless-gpt/trust); [moby trust report](/tools/moby-moby/trust). --- **Machine-readable endpoints** - JSON: [`/api/graphcanon/graph?tool=icereed-paperless-gpt`](/api/graphcanon/graph?tool=icereed-paperless-gpt) - LLM index: [/llms.txt](/llms.txt) - Full corpus: [/llms-full.txt](/llms-full.txt) _GraphCanon - The knowledge graph for AI development. https://www.graphcanon.com/_