Head to head
site-spec vs squirrelscan
Same numbers we show everywhere else, lined up. Ratings come from users, the grade comes from our scanner, adoption comes from public registries.
No reviews yet
MCP server: audit any website for SEO, accessibility, and AI-searchability, then auto-fix it.
Full listing
No reviews yet
Website QA for your coding agent: audit SEO, performance, security, accessibility over MCP.
Full listingThe short version
Neither has been reviewed yet, so the comparison rests on the scan and the public usage numbers. The safety scan favours site-spec (85/100 against 76). squirrelscan is hosted and callable through the gateway; site-spec runs on your own machine. squirrelscan has noticeably more public adoption.
| site-spec | squirrelscan | |
|---|---|---|
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Safety grade | A85/100 | B76/100 |
| Adoption | Growing | Established |
| GitHub stars | 1 | 267 |
| Downloads / week | 28 | – |
| Runs where | Your machine (local) | Hosted (remote) |
| Gateway-ready | No | Yes |
| Tools | 4 | 25 |
| Write actions | — | 6 |
| Price per call | Free | Free |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Last release | 2026-09-11 | 2026-09-25 |
| Category | SEO | SEO |