Cathedral — Persistent Memory for AI Agents vs Living Memory
In-depth architectural comparison of the Cathedral — Persistent Memory for AI Agents and Living Memory 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
Cathedral — Persistent Memory for AI Agents
Knowledge & Memory · Local stdio
Quality: 39/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Living Memory
Knowledge & Memory · Local stdio
Quality: 37/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose Cathedral — Persistent Memory for AI Agents if you need specialized Knowledge & Memory tools running via a local process. Choose Living Memory if your workspace requires Knowledge & Memory integration with local subprocess execution. Both servers can be configured concurrently in your client's mcpServers manifest.
Which MCP Server Should You Choose?
Choose Cathedral — Persistent Memory for AI Agents when:
You need dedicated capabilities in the Knowledge & Memory domain.
You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
Cathedral — Persistent Memory for AI Agents is categorized under Knowledge & Memory and uses a local stdio subprocess. In contrast, Living Memory belongs to Knowledge & Memory using local stdio subprocess. Select Cathedral — Persistent Memory for AI Agents when you need capabilities focused on knowledge & memory and Living Memory when you require tools for knowledge & memory.