MCP Hangar vs Openzim MCP
An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of MCP Hangar and Openzim MCP, two MCP Servers projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.
MCP Hangar leads on trust — 88.2/100 (Grade A) vs 87.1/100 (Grade A), a 1.1-point gap. Full breakdown below.
| Signal | MCP Hangarmcp-hangar/mcp-hangar | Openzim MCPcameronrye/openzim-mcp |
|---|---|---|
| HVTrust score | 88.2 | 87.1 |
| Evidence grade | A | A |
| Coverage grade | B | B |
| Overall rank | #24 | #31 |
| Rank in MCP Servers | #4 | #6 |
| GitHub stars | 14 | 124 |
| Last updated | 1d ago | 2d ago |
| Build provenance | Yes | Yes |
| OSSF Scorecard | 8.3 / 10 | 7.5 / 10 |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Downloads | 1k/wk | 1k/wk |
| Trust dimensions (points earned) | ||
| Safety / integrity / 25 | 22.8 | 21.8 |
| Identity & provenance / 18 | 18.0 | 18.0 |
| Transparency / 17 | 15.6 | 14.9 |
| Maintenance / 20 | 19.9 | 19.1 |
| Adoption / 20 | 6.9 | 9.2 |
| Runtime capability surface (full matrix) | ||
| MCP server | Implemented | Implemented |
| External providers | 1 — Postgres | — |
| Requires API keys | No | Yes |
| Plugin surface | — | — |
| Provenance drift | Match | Match |
How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption, scaled by an evidence-confidence factor. Grade bands: A ≥ 80, B ≥ 65, C ≥ 50, D < 50. Signals refresh daily. Full methodology v4.3 →