Cybara vs Lunen.ai

Cybara 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.

Cybara

Cybara is a fully open-source, MIT-licensed agent runtime you run entirely on your own hardware, with no required account, no telemetry, and no cloud dependency. The vendor describes 50+ model providers, 80+ built-in tools, and 25+ messaging channels available out of the box — a surface area that takes serious effort to configure correctly before it pays off. The operator controls are the genuine differentiator: per-session tool allowlists, filesystem checkpoints, spend caps, and approval gates mean agents don't act without your sign-off. The breadth is also the trap — teams starting with a single use case will spend time disabling or routing around features that don't apply to them. Where it earns its complexity is multi-channel deployments or on-chain automation where the alternative is building that policy layer from scratch.

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	Cybara	Lunen.ai
Pricing	Free	Paid
Free trial	No	No
Open source	Yes	No
Has API	No	No
Self-hosted option	Yes	Yes
Platforms	macOS, Windows, Linux, Web, iOS, Android	Cloud
Released	—	2026
Pros	100% self-hosted with no required account or telemetry, so data never leaves your infrastructure — which means compliance environments that block third-party agent runtimes stay viable. Per-session and persistent tool allowlists paired with approval gates, so agents cannot execute filesystem writes or external calls you haven't explicitly signed off on — teams that have been burned by runaway automation don't have to build that guardrail layer themselves. Multi-key credential pools with rate-limit rotation, spend caps, and circuit breakers, so a single provider hitting its limit doesn't stall a production workflow — the router falls back automatically rather than failing silently. MCP support in both directions — Cybara consumes external MCP servers as tools and exposes its own tools to other MCP clients — which means you're not locked into a proprietary integration model when your stack changes. Agents codify verified multi-step procedures as skills that reload on every future session, so repetitive multi-step tasks stop requiring re-prompting and the agent's effective capability grows with use.	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	The configuration surface is wide by design, and a team standing up a first deployment — model providers, credential pools, tool allowlists, channel policies, wallet caps — faces a setup overhead that a narrow single-use-case prototype doesn't justify. Teams that need something running in an afternoon switch to a managed hosted platform and accept the data-residency trade-off. There is no hosted or cloud fallback: if your infrastructure goes down, your agents go down. Teams running uptime-sensitive customer-facing agents who don't want to own the SRE burden for the runtime itself will find this architecture unsustainable and move to a vendor-managed solution. The on-chain wallet features (ETH, BTC, SOL) and desktop computer-use automation require careful policy configuration before they are safe to run in a shared environment — the docs describe policy caps and SSRF protection, but misconfigured allowlists on a multi-user deployment expose real execution risk that a managed platform would gate behind their own controls.	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

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

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between Cybara and Lunen.ai?

Cybara 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 Cybara 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.