mcp-searxng vs extension-subscript — Trust Score Comparison
Side-by-side trust comparison of mcp-searxng and extension-subscript. Scores based on security, compliance, maintenance, popularity, and ecosystem signals.
Detailed Metric Comparison
| Metric | mcp-searxng | extension-subscript |
|---|---|---|
| Trust Score | 72.5/100 | 82.5/100 |
| Grade | B | A- |
| Stars | 0 | 0 |
| Category | uncategorized | uncategorized |
| Security | 90 | 90 |
| Compliance | N/A | N/A |
| Maintenance | 85 | 100 |
| Documentation | 80 | 70 |
| EU AI Act Risk | N/A | N/A |
| Verified | Yes | Yes |
Verdict
extension-subscript leads with a trust score of 82.5/100 compared to mcp-searxng's 72.5/100 (a 10.0-point difference). extension-subscript scores higher on maintenance (100 vs 85). Both agents should be evaluated based on your specific requirements.
Detailed Analysis
Security
mcp-searxng leads on security with a score of 90/100 compared to extension-subscript's 90/100. This score reflects dependency vulnerability analysis, known CVE exposure, and security best practices. A higher security score means fewer known vulnerabilities and better security hygiene in the codebase.
Maintenance & Activity
extension-subscript demonstrates stronger maintenance activity (100/100 vs 85/100). This metric captures commit frequency, issue response times, and release cadence. Actively maintained tools receive faster security patches and are less likely to accumulate technical debt.
Documentation
mcp-searxng has better documentation (80/100 vs 70/100). Good documentation reduces onboarding time and helps teams adopt the tool safely. This score evaluates README completeness, API documentation, code examples, and tutorial availability.
Community & Adoption
mcp-searxng has 0 GitHub stars while extension-subscript has 0. Both tools have comparable community sizes, suggesting similar levels of ecosystem support and third-party resources.
When to Choose Each Tool
Choose mcp-searxng if you need:
- Better documentation for faster onboarding
Choose extension-subscript if you need:
- Higher overall trust score — more reliable for production use
- More actively maintained with faster release cadence
Switching from mcp-searxng to extension-subscript (or vice versa)
When migrating between mcp-searxng and extension-subscript, consider these factors:
- API Compatibility: mcp-searxng (uncategorized) and extension-subscript (uncategorized) share similar interfaces since they are in the same category.
- Security Review: Run a security audit after migration. Check the mcp-searxng safety report and extension-subscript safety report for known issues.
- Testing: Ensure your test suite covers all integration points before switching in production.
- Community Support: mcp-searxng has 0 stars and extension-subscript has 0. Larger communities typically mean better Stack Overflow answers and migration guides.
Related Pages
Frequently Asked Questions
Related Comparisons
Last updated: 2026-09-26 | 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.