Home / vs / @reactive-agents/gateway
vs@REACTIVE-AGEN

Bonfire Terminal vs @reactive-agents/gateway

@reactive-agents/gateway is a free, open-source AI Agent Framework supporting any provider, scoring 51 for sovereignty though its hosting is unstated. Bonfire Terminal commits to fully on-device execution: nothing leaves your machine, local Whisper handles speech, your key is billed at cost, and one perpetual license covers a finished agent.

Apply for AccessAI AGENT FRAMEWORK
Full comparison

Bonfire Terminal vs @reactive-agents/gateway: the 16-factor comparison

Rating factor@reactive-agents/gatewayBonfire Terminal
CategoryAI Agent FrameworkAI Terminal / Local Agent
PopularityNot disclosedGrowing · indie
Hosting architectureNot disclosedOn-Device Local
Licensing modelOpen SourceOne-Time Perpetual
Data / training policyNot disclosedFully local — nothing leaves device
Offline capabilityNot disclosedYes
Pricing tier rangeFree (OSS)One-time license
Execution unit costNot disclosedUnlimited Local Compute
API-key markupN/ANo — BYO key at cost
Supported LLM providersAnyOpenAI; Anthropic; Google; Local; Any
Auth / permission typesAPI KeyAPI Key; Local/None
Phone / messaging bridgesNoneTelegram; WhatsApp
Speech recognition engineNoneWhisper (local)
Local media processingNot disclosedYes
Sovereign score51 / 10093 / 100
Sovereign Software Score

The sovereignty gap

@reactive-agents/gateway51/ 100
Bonfire Terminal93/ 100+42 on sovereignty

Where @reactive-agents/gateway lands on each weighted pillar (its bar) — the red marker is Bonfire's score. Auto-derived from the 16 factors above.

Privacy & Control@reactive-agents/gateway 9 / 35
9
Bonfire 35
Cost Efficiency@reactive-agents/gateway 23 / 25
23
Bonfire 25
Technical Capabilities@reactive-agents/gateway 8 / 25
8
Bonfire 22
Vendor Risk (lower risk = higher score)@reactive-agents/gateway 11 / 15
11
Bonfire 11
Verdict

Which should you choose?

Choose @reactive-agents/gateway if…

Choose @reactive-agents/gateway if you're a developer wanting a free, open-source, provider-agnostic agent gateway framework to build on.

Choose Bonfire Terminal if…

Choose Bonfire Terminal if you want a finished on-device agent with local speech, media processing, and messaging bridges, not a framework.

FAQ

Bonfire Terminal vs @reactive-agents/gateway: FAQ

Is @reactive-agents/gateway private?

@reactive-agents/gateway is open-source with any-provider support, but its hosting is unstated, so privacy depends on deployment, reflected in its 51 score. Bonfire Terminal is explicitly on-device, so your data never leaves your machine.

Is Bonfire Terminal cheaper than @reactive-agents/gateway?

@reactive-agents/gateway is free open source and cheaper up front. Bonfire Terminal is a one-time perpetual license for a complete agent; both pay LLM providers at cost, so it's a build-your-own versus buy-it-ready decision.

Can Bonfire Terminal replace @reactive-agents/gateway?

For users wanting a working on-device agent, yes. If you're building agent infrastructure and want a low-level gateway framework, @reactive-agents/gateway fits that developer scenario better than Bonfire's packaged product.

What can Bonfire Terminal do that @reactive-agents/gateway can't?

Bonfire Terminal ships local Whisper speech, local media processing, and Telegram and WhatsApp bridges as finished features and runs guaranteed on-device, whereas @reactive-agents/gateway is a framework whose hosting and those capabilities you'd build yourself.

How do I switch from @reactive-agents/gateway to Bonfire Terminal?

Install Bonfire Terminal and reuse your LLM key, since both support any provider. Re-express your agent logic as Bonfire tasks running on-device; migration is rebuilding workflows rather than exporting from a hosted service.

Does Bonfire Terminal work offline vs @reactive-agents/gateway?

@reactive-agents/gateway's offline and hosting behavior is unstated. Bonfire Terminal is explicitly local-first, so its agent, local Whisper, and media processing run offline, with only remote LLM calls requiring a connection.