Aegis vs Fulcrum — MCP Server Comparison | AllMCPs
Side-by-Side Model Context Protocol Comparison
Aegis vs Fulcrum
In-depth architectural comparison of the Aegis and Fulcrum MCP servers. Compare execution transports, security boundaries, tool capabilities, quality scores, and ready-to-paste client installation snippets for Claude, Cursor, Windsurf, and VS Code.
At a Glance & Executive Verdict
Aegis
Security · Local stdio
Quality: 29/100 (Emerging) | Auth: No auth required
Fulcrum
Security · Local stdio
Quality: 20/100 (Emerging) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose Aegis if you need specialized Security tools running via a local process. Choose Fulcrum if your workspace requires Security integration with local subprocess execution. Both servers can be configured concurrently in your client's mcpServers manifest.
Which MCP Server Should You Choose?
A
Choose Aegis when:
You need dedicated capabilities in the Security domain.
You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
Aegis is categorized under Security and uses a local stdio subprocess. In contrast, Fulcrum belongs to Security using local stdio subprocess. Select Aegis when you need capabilities focused on security and Fulcrum when you require tools for security.