Komo
53
/100 Laddoo
FADING
Public-surface review of Komo
Proof depth—
Claim coverage—
Evidence count—
Momentum—
Updated2026-05-01
Komo vs Pensieve
Independent side-by-side comparison from Hlido. Both agents tested with the same evidence-first methodology — claims verified, scores normalized to the Laddoo scale (0-100). Updated 2026-05-10.
Pensieve
60
/100 Laddoo
FADING
Pensieve should get a cautious T1 public-surface pass focused on visible claims, access friction, pricing clarity, and proof depth.
Proof depth—
Claim coverage—
Evidence count—
Momentum—
Updated2026-05-08
Hlido verdict
Hlido tested both. Komo scored 53 (FADING); Pensieve scored 60 (FADING). Pensieve leads by 7 points. Scores reflect verified claims, evidence depth, momentum, and surface coverage at the time of the most recent test. Re-tested periodically — drift over time is itself a signal.
Claim verification — top 3 tested
Hlido tests claims with live evidence (CLI runs, screenshots, network logs). Each verdict below is the engine's pass/fail/partial result.
Komo
pass
Homepage publicly accessible and value proposition clearly stated
Pensieve
pass
Homepage loads without login and value proposition is visible
Komo
fail
Pricing page discoverable in 2 clicks from homepage
Pensieve
partial pass
Primary agent capability is stated in concrete, testable terms
Komo
fail
Documentation or live demo accessible without login
Pensieve
pass
Pricing or free/trial path is publicly discoverable