Side-by-side MCP server comparison
Short answer: it is close. com.chainstack/chainstack scores 92/100 and Komodo MCP Server scores 93/100 — a 1-point gap, which is inside the noise of a weekly rescore. Komodo MCP Server exposes 11 tools against com.chainstack/chainstack's 3, so the choice comes down to whether you need that extra surface area or would rather keep your context window small.
Last updated
| Metric | com.chainstack/chainstack | Komodo MCP Server |
|---|---|---|
| MCPpedia Score | 92 | 93 |
| Security Score | 30 | 30 |
| Maintenance Score | 17 | 18 |
| GitHub Stars | 3 | 19 |
| Weekly Downloads | 10397.4k | 260.0k |
| Tools | 3 | 11 |
| Est. Token Cost | 450 | 1.6k |
| Open CVEs | 0 | 0 |
| Health | Active | Active |
| Auth Required | No | Yes |
| Transport | http | stdio, sse, http |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| API Pricing | unknown | free |
Komodo MCP Server and com.chainstack/chainstack are closely matched at the top with scores of 93 and 92. Check each server's detail page to decide which fits your use case.
Compare up to 4 servers: mcppedia.org/compare/server-a-vs-server-b-vs-server-c