Head to head
Apple Contacts vs Crossref
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
Search and read Apple Contacts — resolves numbers and emails to names, writes off by default
Full listingCrossref
Cio.github.mrfentmen/crossref-mcpNo reviews yet
Search scholarly works and resolve DOIs through Crossref. No key required.
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 Apple Contacts (92/100 against 65). Apple Contacts has noticeably more public adoption.
| Apple Contacts | Crossref | |
|---|---|---|
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Safety grade | A92/100 | C65/100 |
| Adoption | Growing | — |
| GitHub stars | 3 | – |
| Downloads / week | 383 | – |
| Runs where | Your machine (local) | Your machine (local) |
| Gateway-ready | No | No |
| Tools | 7 | 2 |
| Write actions | 2 | — |
| Price per call | Free | Free |
| Licence | MIT | MIT |
| Last release | 2026-09-19 | — |
| Category | Web search | Web search |