Claude Cowork vs Hearth

Claude Cowork and Hearth 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.

Claude Cowork

Running on Claude Opus 4.7 with a 1M context window, Cowork operates as a desktop agent that plans multi-step tasks, takes screenshots to read your actual screen, and controls mouse, keyboard, and shell commands to execute work inside an isolated VM. It handles file organization, bulk renaming, PDF data extraction, and expense tracking without needing a human to babysit each step — the vendor states it includes self-verification logic that checks its own output before reporting back. The ceiling appears when tasks require judgment calls outside a defined scope: the agent surfaces ambiguity rather than resolving it, which means complex editorial or legal review work still needs you at the keyboard. No self-hosting option exists, so teams with strict data-residency requirements are stopped before they start.

Hearth

Hearth runs on your own hardware and handles the tasks that usually demand a SaaS subscription: opening applications, reading and writing files, driving a real browser you can watch, and carrying memory of past sessions — all without a single request leaving your network. The MIT license means you can fork it, extend it, and ship modified versions without legal friction. That said, the GitHub repo shows 9 stars and 297 commits from a single-org project, which signals early-stage software rather than a hardened production runtime. Windows is the primary target; Linux and macOS support is not confirmed by the page. Teams that need cross-platform deployment or enterprise support will hit the ceiling fast.

Attribute	Claude Cowork	Hearth
Pricing	Paid	Free
Price	$20/mo	—
Free trial	No	No
Open source	No	Yes
Has API	Yes	No
Self-hosted option	No	Yes
Platforms	macOS, Windows	Windows (primary); macOS/Linux from source
Released	2026-01-12	—
Pros	Computer Use API captures screenshots up to 3.75 MP and reads fine UI details in real time, so the agent can operate desktop software that exposes no programmatic API — no integration work required on your end. Built-in self-verification logic checks the agent's own output before it reports back, which means fewer tasks return with silent errors that surface only when a human reviews the result. Folder-level permissions combined with an isolated VM contain what the agent can touch, so a runaway task cannot silently rewrite files outside the scope you defined. A 1M context window lets the agent hold an entire long-horizon workflow in memory across steps — processing 24 monthly expense reports into a single spreadsheet without losing state partway through. Runs on both macOS and Windows via Claude Desktop per the vendor, so cross-platform teams do not need to maintain separate tooling or workflows for different operating systems.	Fully local execution with no telemetry or account requirement, which means sensitive file operations and internal automation never leave the machine — eliminating the data-residency risk that blocks cloud tools in regulated environments. MIT license with a self-hosted architecture, so you can fork, modify, and redistribute without licensing negotiation — the thing that stops most teams from customizing a SaaS automation tool at all. Voice and natural-language input connected directly to OS-level actions, so non-technical users can run repetitive file and app tasks without writing scripts or maintaining a workflow canvas. Reusable, installable 'skills' that the community can share, which means automation one developer builds for cleaning a downloads folder can be packaged and reused by anyone on the same stack — no rebuild from scratch. A visible, watchable browser session rather than headless automation, so you can audit exactly what the agent is doing in real time instead of debugging a black-box scraper after it goes wrong.
Cons	Tasks requiring judgment outside a defined scope — deciding whether duplicate files should be merged or which ambiguous expense belongs to which project — cause the agent to pause and surface the question rather than resolve it; teams doing high-ambiguity document review find they are intervening constantly, which erodes the time savings the tool is supposed to deliver. No self-hosted option exists and all computer-use actions route through Anthropic's cloud, so teams with data-residency requirements or policies prohibiting third-party processing of internal screenshots cannot deploy this tool at all — those teams switch to an on-premises RPA solution or a self-hosted agent framework instead. The tool is paid-only with no free tier or trial, meaning teams cannot run a low-stakes proof of concept before committing budget; engineering leads evaluating the tool against alternatives must either pay upfront or rely on the vendor's demo materials to assess fit.	The project targets Windows explicitly; the page does not confirm Linux or macOS support. Teams running mixed-OS environments or deploying to Linux servers cannot use Hearth without forking the codebase and porting the OS-control layer themselves — at which point they are maintaining their own tool, not adopting one. At single-digit GitHub stars and a single-org contributor base, there is no meaningful community to surface bugs, maintain compatibility with OS updates, or keep pace with new local model releases. When a Windows update breaks the file-control layer, the fix timeline depends entirely on one maintainer. There is no multi-user, logging, or audit-trail architecture described anywhere in the repo. Teams that need to demonstrate who ran what automation and when — for compliance, for incident review, or for shared-machine safety — will find nothing here and will move to a tool like Open Interpreter paired with structured logging, or a managed RPA platform, before the first audit request arrives.

Bottom line

Claude Cowork is paid while Hearth is free; Hearth is open source; only Claude Cowork exposes a public API. Choose based on which difference matters most for your workflow.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between Claude Cowork and Hearth?

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

Is Claude Cowork better than Hearth?

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.