mcp-server vs stable-hash — Trust Score Comparison

Side-by-side trust comparison of mcp-server and stable-hash. Scores based on security, compliance, maintenance, popularity, and ecosystem signals.

mcp-server scores 70.2/100 (B) while stable-hash scores 56.8/100 (D) on the Nerq Trust Score. mcp-server leads by 13.4 points. mcp-server is a data tool with 13 stars, Nerq Verified. stable-hash is a uncategorized tool with 0 stars.
70.2
B verified
Categorydata
Stars13
Sourcegithub
Security0
Compliance100
Maintenance1
Documentation1
vs
56.8
D
Categoryuncategorized
Stars0
Sourcenpm_full
Compliance100

Detailed Metric Comparison

Metric mcp-server stable-hash
Trust Score70.2/10056.8/100
GradeBD
Stars130
Categorydatauncategorized
Security0N/A
Compliance100100
Maintenance1N/A
Documentation1N/A
EU AI Act RiskminimalN/A
VerifiedYesNo

Verdict

mcp-server leads with a trust score of 70.2/100 compared to stable-hash's 56.8/100 (a 13.4-point difference). Both agents should be evaluated based on your specific requirements.

Detailed Analysis

Security

Security scores measure dependency vulnerabilities, CVE exposure, and security practices. mcp-server scores 0 and stable-hash scores N/A on this dimension.

Maintenance & Activity

Activity scores reflect how actively each project is maintained. mcp-server: 1, stable-hash: N/A.

Documentation

Documentation quality is evaluated based on README, API docs, and example coverage. mcp-server: 1, stable-hash: N/A.

Community & Adoption

mcp-server has 13 GitHub stars while stable-hash has 0. mcp-server has significantly broader community adoption, which typically means more Stack Overflow answers, more third-party tutorials, and faster ecosystem development.

When to Choose Each Tool

Choose mcp-server if you need:

  • Higher overall trust score — more reliable for production use
  • More actively maintained with faster release cadence
  • Larger community (13 vs 0 stars)
  • Better documentation for faster onboarding

Choose stable-hash if you need:

  • Consider if it better fits your specific use case

Switching from mcp-server to stable-hash (or vice versa)

When migrating between mcp-server and stable-hash, consider these factors:

  1. API Compatibility: mcp-server (data) and stable-hash (uncategorized) serve different categories, so migration may require significant refactoring.
  2. Security Review: Run a security audit after migration. Check the mcp-server safety report and stable-hash safety report for known issues.
  3. Testing: Ensure your test suite covers all integration points before switching in production.
  4. Community Support: mcp-server has 13 stars and stable-hash has 0. Larger communities typically mean better Stack Overflow answers and migration guides.
mcp-server Safety Report stable-hash Safety Report mcp-server Alternatives stable-hash Alternatives

Related Pages

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is safer, mcp-server or stable-hash?
Based on Nerq's independent trust assessment, mcp-server has a trust score of 70.2/100 (B) while stable-hash scores 56.8/100 (D). The 13.4-point difference suggests mcp-server has a stronger trust profile. Trust scores are based on security, compliance, maintenance, documentation, and community adoption.
How do mcp-server and stable-hash compare on security?
mcp-server has a security score of 0/100 and stable-hash scores N/A/100. There is a notable difference in their security assessments. mcp-server's compliance score is 100/100 (EU risk: minimal), while stable-hash's is 100/100 (EU risk: N/A).
Should I use mcp-server or stable-hash?
The choice depends on your requirements. mcp-server (data, 13 stars) and stable-hash (uncategorized, 0 stars) serve different use cases. On trust, mcp-server scores 70.2/100 and stable-hash scores 56.8/100. Review the full KYA reports for each agent before making a decision. Consider factors like integration requirements, documentation quality (1 vs N/A), and maintenance activity (1 vs N/A).

Related Comparisons

Last updated: 2026-06-19 | Data refreshed weekly
Disclaimer: Nerq trust scores are automated assessments based on publicly available signals. They are not endorsements or guarantees. Always conduct your own due diligence.

We use cookies for analytics and caching. Privacy Policy