Ruby on Rails vs Fresh
Security & risk comparison · Updated October 2026
How does Ruby on Rails compare to Fresh on security, AI-readiness, and total cost of ownership? We scored both across 7 dimensions using NVD/NIST CVE data, GitHub metrics, and our census of the Tranco top 100,000.
Ruby on Rails scores 64/100 overall versus Fresh's 51/100. Ruby on Rails has 180 total CVEs compared to Fresh's 0, though its larger ecosystem contributes to a higher CVE count. (Source: WebPulse framework scoring, NIST NVD and CISA KEV, updated October 2026)
Who actually runs Ruby on Rails and Fresh
Share of sites with an identified platform, from WebPulse's scan of the Tranco top 100,000 and our Common Crawl census.
| Where | Ruby on Rails | Fresh |
|---|---|---|
| Top 1,000 | 3.3% (7) | 0.0% (0) |
| Top 10,000 | 3.3% (85) | 0.0% (0) |
| Top 100,000 | 3.0% (832) | 0.0% (6) |
| Wider web | 0.9% | 0.0% |
Highest-ranked sites on Ruby on Rails
- www.gov.uk#308
- duolingo.com#457
- goodreads.com#463
- openstreetmap.org#579
- service.gov.uk#666
Highest-ranked sites on Fresh
- ton.com.br#18,866
- stone.com.br#22,999
- newtail.com.br#27,801
- pagar.me#45,017
- miess.com.br#80,158
Detected from each homepage's HTML, headers and cookies in September 2026. Methodology
| Metric | Ruby on Rails | Fresh |
|---|---|---|
| Total CVEs | 180 | 0 |
| Critical CVEs | 18 | 0 |
| Exploited (KEV) | 2 | 0 |
| CVEs last year | 15 | 0 |
| Avg CVSS | 5.8 | 0 |
| Security score | 62/100 | 50/100 |
Ruby on Rails scores 65/100. Verdict: Acceptable.
Fresh scores 51/100. Evaluate modern alternatives for better security and AI-readiness.
Data sourced from NVD/NIST CVE database, GitHub API, and WebPulse framework scanner. Scores calculated using a 7-dimension model covering security, performance, ecosystem health, AI-readiness, developer experience, market trajectory, and cost of ownership. Updated October 2026.