Head to head
Protect vs Gateway
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
Fail-closed Cedar policy gate + Ed25519 signed receipts for agent tool calls. Denies on any error.
Full listing
No reviews yet
MCP gateway with runtime security policy, tool-call-level control, and audit of agent actions.
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 Gateway (97/100 against 65). Gateway is hosted and callable through the gateway; Protect runs on your own machine. Protect has noticeably more public adoption.
| Protect | Gateway | |
|---|---|---|
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Safety grade | C65/100 | A97/100 |
| Adoption | Growing | Growing |
| GitHub stars | 9 | 1 |
| Downloads / week | 1.6k | – |
| Runs where | Your machine (local) | Hosted (remote) |
| Gateway-ready | No | Yes |
| Tools | 12 | — |
| Write actions | 5 | — |
| Price per call | Free | Free |
| Licence | MIT | MIT |
| Last release | 2026-09-17 | 2026-09-05 |
| Category | AI and agents | AI and agents |