Field-by-field comparison

Compare the evidence before choosing an MCP.

Each signal stays separate, missing facts remain visible, and the column order follows your selection.

MCPs in this comparison

Uncheck an MCP to remove it. Comparing two or three keeps each signal in its own row.

Open canonical comparison link

Comparable alternatives

Shown only when capability or industry context overlaps.

Side-by-side MCP evidence comparison
Evidence fieldApollo.io MCPShortlist candidatePlaywright MCPMCP100 Recommended
Task fit
Best for
  • Apollo prospecting, enrichment and account research
  • Use for teams already authorized to access Apollo.
  • Inspecting and testing web interfaces through accessibility snapshots
  • Reproducing browser journeys in a dedicated test profile
Not ideal for
  • Contact and sales data access/exports are governed by account permissions and contractual restrictions.
  • API-only testing that does not need a browser
  • Unattended access to a personal browsing profile
Avoid when
  • Contact and sales data access/exports are governed by account permissions and contractual restrictions.
  • The workflow cannot permit an agent to navigate, type, click, upload files, or read page content
  • You cannot isolate sensitive authenticated sessions from the agent-controlled browser
Provenance
Provenance details

First-party MCP

Apollo.io · Publisher source ↗

First-party MCP

Microsoft · Publisher source ↗

Maintenance
Maintenance details

Repo: Not documented

Package: Not documented

Repo: Sep 18, 2026

Package: Sep 21, 2026

Popularity evidence
GitHub starsNot documented

37,525

GitHub stars · checked 2026-09-24T04:14:16.452000Z

Package downloads / 30 daysNo reliable download data

23,800,747

package downloads / 30 days · checked 2026-09-24T04:17:39.045000Z

Shared repository stars

30

Shared repository stars (not MCP-specific) · checked 2026-10-20

Not documented
Client coverage
Client coverage detailsNot documented
Claude Code✓ Local stdio
Claude Desktop✓ Local stdio
Codex✓ Local stdio
VS Code✓ Local stdio
Cursor✓ Local stdio
OpenCode✓ Local stdio
Client coverage noteLocal stdio runs on your computer. Streamable HTTP connects to a remotely hosted MCP server.
Access and data
AuthenticationApollo.io OAuth through the user's Apollo account.The server itself does not require a service account for local stdio use, but websites opened in the controlled browser may use cookies or other authenticated browser state.
CostSome MCP actions, including enrichment, consume Apollo credits. The account's plan and credit balance therefore affect usage cost/availability.The first-party open-source package lists no MCP server usage fee. Normal internet, hosted-client, proxy, or third-party website costs can still apply.
PermissionsThe server acts with the authenticated user's Apollo workspace permissions and can only access/perform actions allowed to that account.The exposed tools can navigate pages, interact with elements, enter text, upload files, inspect network activity, and optionally use additional browser capabilities.
Data handlingRequests are sent to Apollo's hosted MCP endpoint and interact with Apollo data under the authenticated account. Apollo's reviewed MCP documentation advises avoiding unnecessary sensitive information in prompts.Page text, accessibility snapshots, console output, network details, uploaded paths, and browser state may be returned to the connected MCP client. Isolated mode keeps the temporary profile in memory; persistent mode stores browser state on disk.
Limitations
Tradeoffs
  • Show mandatory vendor restriction and avoid recommending clients with training enabled
  • A persistent profile is convenient but can retain cookies and authenticated state between sessions.
  • Origin allow/block options reduce accidental access but the publisher explicitly says they are not a security boundary.
Risk contextThe MCP can create contacts and add/remove contacts from outreach sequences. Sequence enrollment may trigger external outbound activity; enrichment can consume credits.Playwright MCP is not a security boundary. Secret replacement or masking is a convenience feature, not a security boundary. Prefer an isolated browser profile, non-sensitive test accounts, narrow destinations, minimal optional permissions, and client-side approval controls.
Evidence date
Editorial review2026-10-192026-07-24
Candidate evidence2026-10-192026-09-24T04:25:05.554391Z

Popularity, maintenance, fit, permissions, and client support are independent evidence fields.

Read the evidence method →