Head to head
MCP vs Quiet Failures
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
Security tools for your AI: scan, pentest, check headers, guard code and scan repos for secrets.
Full listing
No reviews yet
Open weekly security base rates (CC BY 4.0), plus live DMARC, takeover and WHOIS checks.
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 MCP (86/100 against 56). Quiet Failures is hosted and callable through the gateway; MCP runs on your own machine. MCP has noticeably more public adoption.
| MCP | Quiet Failures | |
|---|---|---|
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Safety grade | A86/100 | C56/100 |
| Adoption | Growing | New |
| GitHub stars | 1 | – |
| Downloads / week | 778 | – |
| Runs where | Your machine (local) | Hosted (remote) |
| Gateway-ready | No | Yes |
| Tools | — | 6 |
| Write actions | — | 1 |
| Price per call | Free | Free |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | — |
| Last release | 2026-09-11 | — |
| Category | Security | Security |