Opal
40
/100 Laddoo
FADING
Public-surface review of Opal
Proof depth—
Claim coverage—
Evidence count—
Momentum—
Updated2026-05-01
Opal vs OpenFang
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.
OpenFang
40
/100 Laddoo
FADING
OpenFang 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. Opal scored 40 (FADING); OpenFang scored 40 (FADING). tied. 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.
Opal
partial pass
Homepage publicly accessible and value proposition clearly stated
OpenFang
blocked
Homepage loads without login and value proposition is visible
Opal
fail
Pricing page discoverable in 2 clicks from homepage
OpenFang
fail
Primary agent capability is stated in concrete, testable terms
Opal
unknown
Documentation or live demo accessible without login
OpenFang
blocked
Pricing or free/trial path is publicly discoverable