PLUR vs Cognee

Choose Cognee for an open, self-hostable graph+vector pipeline. Choose PLUR for a portable engram format you own and share as packs.

Bottom line: Cognee if you want an ECL graph+vector memory pipeline; PLUR if you want to own the memory as an open, portable format with shareable knowledge packs.

What each is best at

Where they differ (that matters)

Recall — table stakes, not the deciding factor

Both are competitive; quality is table stakes. PLUR reaches 97.6% R@5 on LongMemEval-S, fully local. The decision is the open portable format and packs, not a recall delta. (LongMemEval-S · n=500 · chunk · canonical-doc; R@5 = evidence in the top-5, not answer accuracy; measured on our own plur-bench harness, public with our paper.)

Choose Cognee if

you want an open, self-hostable graph+vector pipeline as your memory model.

Choose PLUR if

you want a portable engram format you own, shareable knowledge packs, and one memory across the tools you already use.

Install PLUR

npx @plur-ai/mcp init      # Claude Code / Cursor / Windsurf (any MCP client)
openclaw plugins install @plur-ai/claw && openclaw gateway --force   # OpenClaw
pip install plur-hermes    # Hermes Agent (Python)

Engrams are stored locally as files under ~/.plur/. Connect over MCP from Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf, OpenClaw, or Hermes.

FAQ

Cognee vs PLUR — which should I use? Cognee for a graph+vector pipeline; PLUR for a portable, owned engram format with shareable packs.

Both are open-source and EU-aligned — what's the real difference? What the memory is: Cognee is a graph store; PLUR is an open portable format you can read, diff, move, and share as packs.