Rating · evidence to 26 Sept 2026
68
- Provisional
- Trust B
The Register / Agent-building platforms / AutoGPT
Register entry · Agent-building platforms · updated 26 Sept 2026
AutoGPT
Significant Gravitas · Agent-building platforms
AutoGPT began in 2023 as an open-source autonomous GPT-4 agent and has since become the AutoGPT Platform: users build agents from blocks in a visual builder or by chat, then run them on schedules or triggers in the hosted cloud or on their own servers. The platform code is under the PolyForm Shield licence (source-available, not OSI), while the classic agent and Forge remain MIT. Hosted plans start at $42.50 a month billed annually, with automations billed from a prepaid credit wallet.
What reviewers and users praise
- Very large name recognition and GitHub following (187k stars)
- Self-hosting option alongside a hosted service
What they criticise
- Users describe it as experimental, token-hungry and hard to self-host (r/AutoGPT, r/n8n, Toolwise review)
- Long run of security advisories in 2025-2026, including critical RCE and SSRF issues in platform blocks
- Platform code is source-available (PolyForm Shield), not open source
Experts vs the crowdneeds both scores
Experts—
Crowd32
| Price | Free, paid from $42.5 |
|---|---|
| Use it via | Web app, API |
| Runs on | web, linux, macos, windows |
| Licence | PolyForm-Shield-1.0.0 |
| Updated | Evidence collected 26 Sept 2026 |
How the rating was worked out
Weights for Agent-building platforms: adoption 35%, experts 35%, crowd 30%. Pillars without enough evidence are left out and the others re-weighted. The method.
| Adoption & momentumweight 35% | 99 | GitHub stars 188k → 99 · 12 releases in 90 days → 100reach × 0.7 + momentum × 0.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Expertsindependent reviews · weight 35% | — | No independent reviews found |
| Crowdcommunity sample · weight 30% | 32 | 8 dated posts from reddit, hackernews: 1 positive · 1 mixed · 6 negative (positive + ½ mixed) ÷ n, averaged toward 50 for small samples |
| Rating | 68 | Provisional: low confidence (2 of 3 pillars, 8 community posts). |
Evidence checks. 1 review from tool directories, AI-written pages or unnamed authors not counted. How evidence is checked.
Editorial adjustment. Incident-history re-grade under methodology revision 2 (see the trust section).
Trust & safety
Seven dimensions graded A–D from documented facts. Overall: B.
C
Permission model
Agents are designed to run on their own on schedules or triggers; the pricing page lists 'Human-in-the-Loop Approvals' as an available capability, i.e. opt-in rather than a default gate. No default sandbox documented for block execution. source
n/e
Data access scope
Agents act through user-connected integrations/credentials; scoping documentation was not reviewed in this pass.
A
Data storage
Platform can be self-hosted with Docker (source in autogpt_platform/); hosted cloud is optional. source
n/e
Data retention & training
No training or retention statement found on the homepage or pricing page; privacy policy not reviewed.
C
Incident history (24 months)
Repository lists dozens of published advisories in 24 months, including critical RCE via disabled-block bypass (CVE-2026-24780, CVE-2026-26020), multiple SSRF (e.g. CVE-2025-62615, CVE-2025-62616, CVE-2026-56663), unsafe pickle deserialisation (CVE-2026-33233), session hijacking via IDOR (CVE-2026-30950), plaintext API-key logging (CVE-2026-22038) and webhook secret bypass (CVE-2026-72922, Aug 2026). Advisories are published with fixes, but the pattern is repeated. Regraded from D: Revision 2: serious issues that were each fixed and publicly disclosed grade C; D is kept for unresolved issues or slow or undisclosed fixes. source
n/e
Compliance
No SOC 2 / ISO 27001 attestation mentioned on the homepage or pricing page; a trust page was not found in this pass. source
B
Transparency
Platform source is public but under PolyForm Shield (not OSI); classic agent and Forge are MIT. Frequent public GitHub releases with notes. source
The experts
0 named independent reviews found; dated reviews from the last 12 months are scored.
- None found.
The crowd
8 coded posts from reddit, hackernews.
1 positive1 mixed6 negative
- negative
I went through the pain of setting up AutoGPT from source so others don’t have to.
r/LLMDevs · 29 Aug 2026 · reddit.com - negative
AutoGPT self-hosting docs are garbage, save yourself the headache
r/AutoGPT · 3 Mar 2026 · reddit.com - positive
AutoGPT is slept on, it’s way more capable than people think
r/AutoGPT · 3 Mar 2026 · reddit.com - negative
AutoGPT: 182k stars, no stable cloud product, pivoted 3+ times
r/SideProject · 27 Feb 2026 · reddit.com - negative
AutoGPT: Still feels more like a research project than a business tool. Great for a weekend project, but I would never put it in front of a client.
r/n8n · 20 Feb 2026 · reddit.com - mixed
For me it works, but the documentation sucks, ie. it looks like it's behind autogpt development by a few years.
r/AutoGPT · 17 Jan 2026 · reddit.com - negative
AutoGPT burns tokens fast without much result.
r/AutoGPT · 28 Sept 2025 · reddit.com - negative
AutoGPT was a failure, but Claude Code / Codex CLI / the whole category of coding agents fit the above description almost exactly
OpenClaw is basically a cascade of LLMs in prime position to mess stuff up · 3 Feb 2026 · news.ycombinator.com
Pricing
As published, checked 26 Sept 2026.
| Plan | Price | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Self-hosted | Free | Run the platform yourself under the PolyForm Shield licence; pay your own model/API costs. |
| Pro | $42.5 / monthly | Billed annually; background agents, visual builder, scheduled/event triggers; automations billed separately from a prepaid credit wallet. |
| Max | $272 / monthly | Billed annually; 8.5x Pro capacity, 5x file storage, priority support. |
| Team | Custom | Listed as coming soon; contact sales. |
Recent changes
Ranked alongside
Other ranked entries in Agent-building platforms.
n8nn8n GmbH68Sources
Every figure above traces to one of these, observed up to 26 Sept 2026.