Compare
Up to three tools. The table shows the data as-is, without picking a “best”.
| Field | Gitleaks | Miller | act |
|---|---|---|---|
| Platforms | Universal, GitHub | Universal, MCP, Claude Code, Codex, Cursor | GitHub |
| Local support | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Paid API | No | No | No |
| License | MIT | BSD-2-Clause | MIT |
| Stars | 30318 | 10050 | 72444 |
| Last activity | October 23, 2026 | October 21, 2026 | — |
| Install complexity | LOW | EASY | — |
| Category | Security, Git, DevOps | Workflow, Data | Testing, Git, DevOps |
| Best use | Best for an individual developer or small team that wants a local pre-commit secret scan plus a second CI gate. It is especially useful around deployment configuration and environment files. It does not replace a secret manager or credential revocation after a leak. | Ideal for developers, data analysts, and operators who need to clean a CSV export, inspect JSON Lines, or summarize a large file from the terminal without starting a Python project. Use it for quick, repeatable file processing; concurrent transactions and advanced visual analysis still call for a database or complementary analytics tool. | Best for a developer or small team that repeatedly edits GitHub Actions workflows and wants to test a job before pushing. It provides a local run log, while a final GitHub check remains necessary. It is not suitable when exact hosted-runner parity is required. |