All comparisons
Heartwood Memory comparison

Heartwood vs Mem0 — provable, governed agent memory

TL;DR

Mem0 is a widely used drop-in memory layer with managed and self-hosted options and integrations for 20+ partner frameworks. Heartwood is the younger, governance-first option: it stores each memory as an Ed25519-signed record, gates recall by policy before ranking, and emits a per-subject key-destruction proof on erasure — all re-executable from a source-available core. Choose Mem0 for fast, integration-rich recall; choose Heartwood when you must prove governance per record.

At-a-glance table

Heartwood Memory compared with Mem0
AxisHeartwood MemoryMem0
Governance granularityPer individual memory recordOrg/project membership + entity IDs (user/agent/app/session); not documented as per-record policy
Provenance signingPer-record Ed25519, fail-closed readNot evaluated in public docs (full change history documented)
Tamper-evident auditHash-chained audit logNot evaluated in public docs (live audit log documented)
Policy-before-rankingYesNot evaluated in public docs
Erasure / RTBFCrypto-shred + key-destruction proofRecord/batch/entity-filtered/project deletion (no cryptographic proof)
Tenant isolationYesYes — Mem0 Platform isolates by org/project membership
InterfacePython library + governed MCP serverPython/TS SDKs, REST API, MCP, self-hosted server
DeploymentSelf-hosted, embeddedManaged Platform or Apache-2.0 self-hosted library/REST
LicenseSource-available (BSL 1.1); 0.1.x MITApache-2.0 (OSS repo); managed Platform terms separate
PricingFree / Team $349·mo / Pro $6,000·yr (early access)Hobby Free / Starter $19·mo / Growth $79·mo / Pro $249·mo / Enterprise custom
Best-forRecord-level, re-executable proofDrop-in memory + broad integrations

“Not evaluated in public docs” = not found in Mem0's current primary documentation as of 2026-07-15; it is not a claim the feature is absent. Vendor pricing reverified immediately before publish.

Comparison by dimension

Governance

Both isolate tenants. Mem0 scopes access by organization/project membership and entity identifiers; Heartwood binds policy to each memory record and enforces it before ranking. If your controls need to travel with individual memories, that's the difference.

Provable erasure

Mem0 documents record, batch, entity-filtered, and project deletion — real deletion, but not a cryptographic proof. Heartwood's forget(hard) crypto-shreds the per-subject key and records a key-destruction proof (scoped honestly: proof of key destruction, not instant physical deletion).

Deployment & license

Both self-host; Mem0's OSS repo is Apache-2.0, Heartwood's core is source-available under BSL 1.1 (0.1.x MIT). Mem0's managed Platform ships today; Heartwood's hosted tiers are early access.

Who Mem0 is best for

Teams wanting a drop-in, integration-rich memory layer, managed or self-hosted, without a record-level proof requirement.

Who Heartwood is best for

Regulated/compliance-driven teams that need per-record provenance, policy-gated recall, and a re-executable deletion proof.

Can Heartwood run underneath Mem0?

Heartwood implements a shape-compatible memory-provider lifecycle (an example contract, not an official integration) and can sit underneath as the governed store behind the same memory calls.

See the governed-memory model

FAQ

Is Heartwood a drop-in Mem0 replacement?

Not a drop-in — it's a governed layer with a shape-compatible provider contract, so integration differs. If governance, audit, and provable erasure are requirements, that difference is the point.

Is Mem0 open source?

Mem0's open-source repository is Apache-2.0; its managed Platform has separate terms.