Head to head
Apricot vs ContextStream MCP Server
Same numbers we show everywhere else, lined up. Ratings come from users, the grade comes from our scanner, adoption comes from public registries.
The short version
Neither has been reviewed yet, so the comparison rests on the scan and the public usage numbers. The safety scan favours ContextStream MCP Server (96/100 against 87). ContextStream MCP Server has noticeably more public adoption.
| Apricot | ContextStream MCP Server | |
|---|---|---|
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Safety grade | A87/100 | A96/100 |
| Adoption | Growing | Established |
| GitHub stars | 0 | 43 |
| Downloads / week | – | 964 |
| Runs where | Hosted (remote) | Hosted (remote) |
| Gateway-ready | Yes | Yes |
| Tools | — | — |
| Write actions | — | — |
| Price per call | Free | Free |
| Licence | NOASSERTION | MIT |
| Last release | 2026-09-14 | 2026-09-15 |
| Category | AI and agents | AI and agents |