Ciris vs Lunen.ai

Ciris and Lunen.ai are both ai agent apps 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.

Ciris

CIRIS runs a signed reasoning agent on your phone or a home device, with no warehouse in the middle for the closest privacy circles. The vendor describes two paths: fully on-device using a small model like Gemma 4, or free hosted inference for phones that can't run a local model — both paths produce cryptographically signed outputs. Every claim the agent makes carries an ed25519+post-quantum signature, so you can audit it, revoke trust, and re-open any conclusion built on a bad source. The architecture depends on a 'social circle' data model; data in your innermost circles never sends the network message that would let anyone request it. Teams needing broad third-party integrations or a hosted API endpoint will find neither here.

Lunen.ai

A subject-matter expert describes what they want in plain language; Lunen drafts a structured execution plan with named tools, scoped data, and a schedule — no canvas, no YAML. Every MCP tool connection becomes a per-tool policy decision: allow it to run unattended, or pause for a human sign-off before each call. User actions and agent actions land in the same audit log, which means security reviews have a single trail to pull. The ceiling appears when teams need conditional branching between agent steps — the plain-language plan model does not surface that logic visibly, so complex multi-step dependencies require workarounds the interface does not directly support.

Attribute	Ciris	Lunen.ai
Pricing	Free	Paid
Free trial	No	No
Open source	Yes	No
Has API	No	No
Self-hosted option	Yes	Yes
Platforms	iPhone, Android, desktop, pip	Cloud
Released	—	2026
Pros	On-device inference with no data center in the path for supported hardware, which means your input and the agent's reasoning never leave the device — no logs elsewhere, no third-party retention. Cryptographic signing on every agent output using ed25519 plus a post-quantum scheme, so you can trace exactly what the agent claimed, who agreed, who pushed back, and revoke trust retroactively if a source is found to be misleading. Seven-circle privacy model where innermost circles are structurally isolated — not by policy enforcement but by the absence of the outbound network message — which means there is no configuration mistake that can accidentally expose 'self' or 'family' data. Fully open-source under AGPL-3.0 with self-hosted option, so the vendor going dark does not kill your deployment and you can audit the signing and isolation logic yourself. Hosted inference path available at no cost for low-resource devices in 29 languages, which means teams can deploy to users whose hardware cannot run a local model without building separate infrastructure.	Plain-language agent creation produces a structured execution plan without drag-and-drop builders or YAML, so non-technical staff can define agents that IT can actually review and approve rather than shadow-deploying on personal accounts. Per-tool allow/approve toggles apply to every agent and every ad-hoc run from a single policy screen, which means a CRM write permission cannot accidentally slip through on a one-off run that bypasses the standing policy. User actions and agent actions land in the same audit log with full input visibility per event, so compliance teams pull a single trail instead of reconciling agent logs against user logs during a review. MCP server support means the policy and audit framework extends to any tool with an MCP integration, not just the named connectors — reducing the risk that a new integration creates an ungoverned side channel. BYOC deployment keeps production data inside the organization's own infrastructure, which means data residency requirements do not force a choice between governance tooling and compliance posture.
Cons	No API surface exists — there is no endpoint to call from an external pipeline, no webhook, no SDK. Any team building a product that needs to programmatically query the agent or integrate it into an existing backend hits a hard wall on day one and moves to a tool with an API. The CEWP fabric is a closed trust network; it does not bridge to standard enterprise identity systems, cloud storage, or third-party data sources. Teams expecting to connect the agent to a CRM, a document store, or an external knowledge base find no integration path and either abandon the tool or build outside the CEWP model entirely. On-device inference requires hardware capable of running a small local model. The vendor names Gemma 4 as an example. Devices that cannot meet this threshold fall back to hosted inference, reintroducing a data center into the path and partially negating the core privacy architecture for those users. The social circle and trust federation model is novel and not documented against standard compliance frameworks. Teams operating under HIPAA, SOC 2, or GDPR audit requirements cannot map CIRIS's architecture to their compliance checklists without significant interpretive work — and no audit trail export to standard formats is described.	The plain-language plan model has no visible mechanism for conditional branching between steps — if an agent needs to take different paths depending on what a prior step returned, the interface gives no way to express or inspect that logic, and teams handling multi-step decision trees will route around Lunen with external orchestration, reintroducing the two-system problem. There is no free tier; access is gated behind a paid plan or an enterprise contact-sales path, which means teams that want to evaluate the governance model against a real production workflow before committing budget have no low-friction entry point — the evaluation friction alone pushes some teams toward open-source alternatives where they can self-host and test without a contract. The tool set is limited to named connectors plus MCP servers; organizations running internal tooling without MCP support face a build-your-own integration problem that sits outside the governed plane Lunen provides, leaving those tool calls unlogged and unapproved.

Bottom line

Ciris is free while Lunen.ai is paid; Ciris is open source. Choose based on which difference matters most for your workflow.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between Ciris and Lunen.ai?

Ciris is Free and open source, while Lunen.ai is Paid. Compare pricing, free trial, API, platforms, and pros/cons in the table above on AIDiveForge.

Is Ciris better than Lunen.ai?

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.

Ciris vs Lunen.ai: which should I pick?

Pick Ciris if its pricing model, openness, or platform fit matches your constraints; pick Lunen.ai otherwise. Check free-trial availability on each listing if you want to test before committing.

Comparison data is sourced and verified by the AIDiveForge data pipeline. AIDiveForge is editorially independent.