Head to head
MCPComp Diagnostics vs Filamental
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
Grade an MCP server's auth against the spec and diagnose which layer a failure is in.
Full listingFilamental
Aio.github.Scottnine/filamentalNo reviews yet
Read/write access to your Filamental knowledge graph vault. 17 tools. Local-first, no auth.
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 Filamental (85/100 against 60). Filamental has noticeably more public adoption.
| MCPComp Diagnostics | Filamental | |
|---|---|---|
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Safety grade | C60/100 | A85/100 |
| Adoption | New | Growing |
| GitHub stars | – | 2 |
| Downloads / week | 55 | 53 |
| Runs where | Your machine (local) | Your machine (local) |
| Gateway-ready | No | No |
| Tools | — | 17 |
| Write actions | — | 5 |
| Price per call | Free | Free |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | NOASSERTION |
| Last release | — | 2026-09-16 |
| Category | Security | Security |