Best Open-Source MCP Servers: AWS MCP Servers vs Grafana MCP Server
A data-backed comparison of the top two mcp servers on HVTracker, built from public trust signals rather than stars alone.
Short answer: AWS MCP Servers currently leads Grafana MCP Server on HVTracker's evidence-weighted trust score: 57.2 vs 50.0/100. This is not a popularity ranking; it combines supply-chain safety, identity/provenance, transparency, maintenance, and adoption signals.
AWS MCP Servers
Pending first signal refresh
Grafana MCP Server
Pending first signal refresh
AWS MCP Servers vs Grafana MCP Server: trust signal breakdown
Both projects are tracked in the MCP Servers category, but they do not expose the same evidence. The table below compares the public signals that feed HVTrust.
| Signal | AWS MCP Servers | Grafana MCP Server |
|---|---|---|
| HVTrust score | 57.2 | 50.0 |
| Safety / Integrity | 10.6/30 | 8.4/30 |
| Identity / Provenance | 10.8/20 | 10.8/20 |
| Transparency | 7.2/20 | 5.7/20 |
| Maintenance | 19.1/20 | 16.7/20 |
| Adoption | 9.5/10 | 8.4/10 |
| OSSF Scorecard | 8.5 | 6.7 |
| Signed commits | Unknown | Unknown |
| Package provenance | Not detected | Not detected |
Which one should you evaluate first?
If your priority is the most verifiable trust profile today, start with AWS MCP Servers. It has the stronger current HVTrust score and ranks higher in MCP Servers. If your use case depends on a specific runtime, language, license, or integration model, use the individual profiles rather than the headline score alone.
For production use, the practical checklist is: inspect the security policy, confirm package provenance or release signing where available, review recent maintenance cadence, and compare the exact trust breakdown. HVTracker is meant to reduce the first-pass research burden, not replace your own risk review.