AutoGPU vs Memharness

AutoGPU and Memharness are both agent frameworks tracked by AIDiveForge. Below is a side-by-side comparison of pricing, capabilities, platforms, and ownership — sourced from each tool's live website and verified before publishing.

AutoGPU

The repo describes autonomous agents writing RTL, running it through real EDA tools, reading timing and layout reports, and revising the design — iterating without a human in the seat for each pass. The documented target is small systolic array architectures, specifically matrix-multiply accelerators; the codebase includes ISA definitions, physical design configs, and golden reference models. At that constrained scope, researchers report the agent loop closes. Scale the design complexity beyond what the existing module hierarchy covers and the agents lose the plot — the feedback loops that work for a mac array do not generalize to a multi-block SoC. Teams pushing past the documented scope end up writing their own agent scaffolding on top, at which point AutoGPU is a reference rather than a runtime.

Memharness

The core premise is storing facts, not strings, with two independent time axes: when something became true in the world and when the agent learned it — so querying past agent states is a real query, not archaeology through logs. Everything lives in a single SQLite file, which means the storage layer makes zero LLM or network calls and stays auditable. Recall combines hybrid vector search and full-text search with a source-staleness signal, so older or superseded sources rank down automatically. Where it breaks: the SQLite backend is a hard ceiling for teams expecting distributed writes or high-concurrency production deployments. Teams hitting that ceiling will need to treat memharness as a pattern to port, not a service to scale horizontally.

Attribute	AutoGPU	Memharness
Pricing	Free	Free
Free trial	No	No
Open source	Yes	Yes
Has API	No	Yes
Self-hosted option	Yes	Yes
Platforms	—	SQLite, MCP
Released	2026-06	—
Pros	Full-stack agentic loop from RTL generation through physical layout hardening, so you avoid the manual handoff between code generation and EDA execution that makes most LLM hardware tools a partial solution. Ships with ISA definitions, module RTL, and golden reference models for matrix-multiply accelerators, which means the agent has structured domain context on day one rather than hallucinating architecture details from scratch. Entirely open-source with no paid-only features, so the full agent scaffolding, EDA integration hooks, and design configs are auditable and forkable — no black-box inference calls gating the loop. Self-hosted by default, which means your RTL, timing reports, and design IP stay on your own infrastructure rather than transiting a vendor's API. Iterative revision loop reads real EDA output — timing reports, layout feedback — and feeds it back into the agent, so design errors surface and get corrected inside the automated loop rather than piling up for a human review session.	Bi-temporal storage tracks both world-time and agent-learn-time independently, so you can reconstruct exactly what the agent believed at any past moment — which means post-incident reviews and compliance audits have an actual record to query instead of inferring from logs. Provenance-scoped deletion lets you remove all facts derived from a specific source in one operation, so GDPR takedown requests or source revocations do not require a full memory wipe that destroys unrelated facts. The storage layer makes zero LLM or network calls, so memory reads and writes have no latency dependency on external APIs and no token cost — which means memory operations do not blow your inference budget. Hybrid vector-plus-full-text recall with a built-in staleness signal means older or superseded sources rank lower automatically, so the agent surfaces the most current relevant facts without you writing custom re-ranking logic. MCP exposure and a self-hosted SQLite backend mean the tool drops into any agent stack that speaks MCP without requiring a separate managed service, so you retain full data ownership and avoid a vendor dependency in the memory layer.
Cons	The agent's planning and feedback parsing are scoped to the existing module hierarchy — small systolic arrays and mac structures. When a design introduces module types outside that vocabulary, the agent loses coherent planning context and the loop stalls or produces nonsense RTL; teams at that point are extending the framework from source, not using it. No API surface and no abstraction layer between the agent and the raw EDA toolchain means EDA tool version changes or environment differences break the agent loop silently; debugging requires tracing through agent execution logs and EDA stdout, not a structured error interface. Star and fork counts from the repository indicate this is an early-stage research artifact with a single primary contributor — community-reported workarounds, tested configurations, and maintained documentation are sparse, so teams that hit an undocumented edge case have the source code and nothing else. Teams needing a maintained, production-grade EDA automation layer with active support will move to a commercial EDA vendor's scripting environment instead.	SQLite is a single-writer database: the moment two agent processes attempt concurrent writes — a parallelized pipeline, a multi-worker deployment, any architecture where more than one process holds the file — writes will collide or block. Teams with concurrent-write requirements either serialize all memory operations through a single process (adding a bottleneck) or abandon memharness for a Postgres- or Redis-backed alternative. The project has 2 stars and 1 fork on GitHub at time of curation, with 19 commits and no open issues, which means community-sourced debugging, third-party integrations, and production war stories are essentially nonexistent. Teams that hit an edge case are reading the source, not a Stack Overflow thread. There is no built-in access control or multi-tenant isolation: if multiple agents or users share the same SQLite file, provenance-scoped deletion could become a liability rather than a feature — one delete call wipes facts for every tenant who learned from that source. Teams building multi-user applications will need to implement per-user database files or a sharding layer before going to production.

Bottom line

Only Memharness exposes a public API. Choose based on which difference matters most for your workflow.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between AutoGPU and Memharness?

AutoGPU is Free and open source, while Memharness is Free and open source. Compare pricing, free trial, API, platforms, and pros/cons in the table above on AIDiveForge.

Is AutoGPU better than Memharness?

It depends on your workflow. Use the side-by-side attributes (pricing, open source, API, self-hosted, platforms) to decide. AIDiveForge does not rank a universal winner — we publish verified facts so you can choose.