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 receipt 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, re-verified at read (opt-in strict enforcement)Not 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 receiptRecord/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.

Erasure with a receipt

Mem0 documents record, batch, entity-filtered, and project deletion — real deletion, but without a cryptographic deletion receipt. Heartwood's forget(hard) crypto-shreds the per-subject key and records a key-destruction receipt (scoped honestly: it reports key destruction and purge counts, 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 receipt-backed 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.