Browser Gateway vs Shotanvil

In-depth architectural comparison of the Browser Gateway and Shotanvil 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.

Which MCP Server Should You Choose?

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).

Explore Browser Gateway Details

Choose Shotanvil when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Browser Automation domain.
• You prefer remote streaming HTTP/SSE transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Shotanvil Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Browser Gateway Browser Automation	Shotanvil Browser Automation
Summary	AI browser tools with Chrome CDP. Navigate, screenshot, interact. Multi-provider failover.	Screenshot/PDF/HTML rendering API. API key or x402 required — keyless access disabled.
Category & Scope	Browser Automation	Browser Automation

Tools & Capabilities Breakdown

Ready-to-Paste Client Configurations

Paste either (or both) of these JSON server blocks into your client config file (e.g. claude_desktop_config.json or ~/.cursor/mcp.json).

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "browser-gateway": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "browser-gateway"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "shotanvil": {
      "url": "https://api.shotanvil.com"
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons