V4 · Comparison — verified July 2026

SuperLocalMemory vs Zep.

Source-linked capability map. Zep / Graphiti's product boundary is taken from primary documentation. Protocol-scoped LoCoMo evidence is disclosed. No pricing comparisons.

V4 AGPL v3 Source-linked No pricing comparisons Protocol-scoped evidence
PRODUCT BOUNDARY · source: github.com/getzep/graphiti

What Zep / Graphiti is.

Product boundary taken from Zep's primary repository and Graphiti documentation. Verify current behavior from the versioned release documentation before making deployment decisions.

Zep / Graphiti

Managed Context Graph service with an open-source temporal graph engine.

Temporal knowledge graphs, governed context assembly, and enterprise context infrastructure. Graphiti is the open-source Python library for building temporal knowledge graphs. Zep Cloud provides a managed service. The Community edition is self-hosted under Apache 2.0.

Choose Zep when: Graph-centric temporal memory is required, complex entity relationships across conversations matter, or managed context infrastructure reduces operational overhead.

Read primary source →
Where SuperLocalMemory V4 fits

Choose SLM when your agents need a local-first operating control plane: SQLite-backed persistent memory, three explicit operating modes, nine npm framework adapters, bounded loops with independent-gate verification, per-workspace RBAC, GDPR Art. 15/17/20 controls, and four integration surfaces — all from one runtime.

Mode A keeps the core memory path local after required assets are present. Mode B adds a configured Ollama endpoint. Mode C adds a configured cloud provider. Optional connectors, proxies, backups, and clients have separate network paths that require independent assessment.

CAPABILITY COMPARISON

SLM V4 vs Zep — side by side.

Attributes are configuration-dependent. Review each item independently for your deployment. Zep values are sourced from primary documentation; verify current behavior from the versioned release.

Capability SLM V4 Zep / Graphiti
Storage layer SQLite-backed, local-first; configurable data root Managed service (Zep Cloud) or self-hosted Community edition
Graph approach Graph-derived local state with optional provider paths Temporal knowledge graph with LLM-based entity extraction (Graphiti)
Operating modes A (local sentence-transformer) / B (Ollama) / C (configured cloud) Deployment-dependent; verify from release documentation
Framework adapters 9 npm packages (V4) Python SDK / Graphiti Python library
Teams & RBAC Admin / member / viewer; per-workspace isolation Organization + user-level memory (Zep Cloud); verify Community edition
Bounded loops Independent-gate verified (V4) Not separately documented
GDPR controls Art. 15/17/20; hash-chained audit trail; opt-in PII redaction Verify provider terms for selected deployment
EU AI Act self-assessment Per-mode (self-assessment, not certification) Not documented
Integration surfaces MCP / CLI / hooks / dashboard Python SDK / REST API / Graphiti library
Published preprints 3 arXiv preprints (2603.14588, 2603.02240, 2604.04514) Varies
License AGPL v3 Apache 2.0 (Community) / Commercial (Zep Cloud)
V4 DIFFERENTIATORS

Nine capability areas in V4.

Documented in the V4 release. Absent from or not documented in most agent memory systems — verify each for your deployment.

01 · Storage

Local-First SQLite Core

The canonical memory source is SQLite-backed at a configurable data root. No cloud persistence is required for the core memory path in Mode A or B.

02 · Modes

Explicit A / B / C Modes

Three documented operating modes with distinct embedding paths and network behaviors. Mode can be switched at runtime — memories persist across the transition.

03 · Adapters

Nine Framework Adapters

Nine adapter packages published on npm in V4. Adapters provide framework-specific bindings without requiring a rewrite of existing tool configuration.

04 · Loops

Bounded Loops — Independent-Gate Verified

V4 adds bounded loop orchestration with an independent verification gate at each iteration boundary. Gate results are inspectable via CLI and dashboard.

05 · Teams

Teams / RBAC + Per-Workspace Isolation

Admin / member / viewer role-based access with per-workspace isolation. Single-user setups are unaffected — no login required for solo use.

06 · Memory Scope

Multi-Scope Memory Boundaries

Personal, shared, and global memory boundaries within the same runtime. Namespaces can have independent mode configurations for different projects.

07 · Governance

GDPR + Per-Mode EU AI Act Self-Assessment

GDPR Art. 15/17/20 controls (access, erasure, portability), a hash-chained audit trail, and opt-in PII redaction. A per-mode EU AI Act self-assessment ships with the tool — a technical-control map, not a legal certification.

08 · Integration

MCP / CLI / Hooks / Dashboard

Four integration surfaces — Model Context Protocol, structured CLI, event hooks, and the multi-agent dashboard — without reconfiguring existing workflows.

09 · Evidence

Four arXiv Preprints

Four public preprints with protocol-scoped LoCoMo evidence and architecture documentation. See Research →

BENCHMARK EVIDENCE

Protocol-scoped LoCoMo evidence.

Published V3 results carried into V4 with original protocol scope. Not a fresh V4 rerun and not an ordinal ranking against Zep claims.

Mode A — Raw
60.4%

10 conversations / 1,276 questions. Local embeddings, local retrieval. No LLM answer construction.

Mode A — Retrieval
74.8%

10 conversations / 1,276 questions. Local retrieval with GPT-4.1-mini answer synthesis disclosed.

Mode C
87.7%

Conv-30 only / 81 questions. text-embedding-3-large plus GPT-4.1-mini generation and judge.

Published V3 architecture evidence carried into V4. Mode A covers 10 conversations and 1,276 questions; the 74.8% retrieval result discloses GPT-4.1-mini answer synthesis. Mode C covers Conv-30 only (81 questions) with cloud embeddings and GPT-4.1-mini. Scope differences between Mode A and Mode C make direct ordinal comparison unreliable. LoCoMo protocols are not comparable without matching dataset, answerer, judge, prompts, and context budget.

GOVERNANCE

EU AI Act self-assessment by mode.

SuperLocalMemory ships a per-mode EU AI Act self-assessment. It is a technical-control map, not a legal certification — applicability depends on your deployment, data, and operator role.

Mode A · Local core Memory processing stays local with no generative AI in the core path. Assessed as meeting requirements — a fit for EU data-residency deployments.
Mode B · Local model Local Ollama enrichment keeps processing on the machine with no external provider. Assessed as meeting requirements.
Mode C · Provider-assisted Sends configured content to an external provider. Flagged non-compliant by the checker; assess provider terms, international transfers, and legal basis.

Regardless of mode: GDPR access / erasure / portability (Art. 15, 17, 20), a hash-chained audit trail, per-workspace isolation, opt-in PII redaction, and admin / member / viewer role-based access. See Governance & EU AI Act controls →

GET STARTED

Try SuperLocalMemory V4.

Open source, AGPL v3. A Qualixar Research Initiative.