Browser Gateway vs Clickcast — MCP Server Comparison | AllMCPs
Side-by-Side Model Context Protocol Comparison
Browser Gateway vs Clickcast
In-depth architectural comparison of the Browser Gateway and Clickcast 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
Browser Gateway
Browser Automation · Local stdio
Quality: 48/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Clickcast
Browser Automation · Local stdio
Quality: 27/100 (Emerging) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose Browser Gateway if you need specialized Browser Automation tools running via a local process. Choose Clickcast if your workspace requires Browser Automation integration with local subprocess execution. Both servers can be configured concurrently in your client's mcpServers manifest.
Which MCP Server Should You Choose?
B
Choose Browser Gateway when:
You need dedicated capabilities in the Browser Automation domain.
You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
Browser Gateway is categorized under Browser Automation and uses a local stdio subprocess. In contrast, Clickcast belongs to Browser Automation using local stdio subprocess. Select Browser Gateway when you need capabilities focused on browser automation and Clickcast when you require tools for browser automation.