Head to head
MCP vs Ghostlight
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
Reliable web access for AI agents: smart HTTP, rotating proxies, and full-browser rendering.
Full listing
No reviews yet
Visible local browser automation in signed-in Chromium, with optional policy and audit.
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 Ghostlight (92/100 against 84). MCP is hosted and callable through the gateway; Ghostlight runs on your own machine.
| MCP | Ghostlight | |
|---|---|---|
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Safety grade | B84/100 | A92/100 |
| Adoption | Growing | Growing |
| GitHub stars | 4 | 1 |
| Downloads / week | 444 | 731 |
| Runs where | Hosted (remote) | Your machine (local) |
| Gateway-ready | Yes | No |
| Tools | 4 | — |
| Write actions | 1 | — |
| Price per call | Free | Free |
| Licence | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Last release | 2026-09-17 | 2026-09-18 |
| Category | Scraping and browsing | Scraping and browsing |