RegistryCompare › mcp-proxy vs mcpc

mcp-proxy vs mcpc

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of mcp-proxy and mcpc, two Protocols & Tool Integration projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.

mcpc leads on trust — 81.3/100 (Grade A) vs 77.4/100 (Grade B), a 3.9-point gap. Full breakdown below.
Signal mcp-proxysparfenyuk/mcp-proxy mcpcapify/mcpc
HVTrust score 77.4 81.3
Evidence grade B A
Coverage grade B B
Overall rank #105 #85
Rank in Protocols & Tool Integration #7 #5
GitHub stars 2.7k 756
Last updated 41d ago 4d ago
Build provenance Yes Yes
OSSF Scorecard 5.2 / 10 4.6 / 10
License MIT Apache-2.0
Downloads 406k/wk 1k/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25 16.5 17.7
Identity & provenance / 18 18.0 18.0
Transparency / 17 12.9 12.4
Maintenance / 20 9.3 17.1
Adoption / 20 15.7 11.1
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server Implemented Implemented
External providers
Requires API keys Yes Yes
Plugin surface
Provenance drift Match Match
Open in the live compare tool → mcp-proxy profile mcpc profile More Protocols & Tool Integration →

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 →