Exomem vs Obsidian Turbocharged

In-depth architectural comparison of the Exomem and Obsidian Turbocharged 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 Exomem 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).

Explore Exomem Details

Choose Obsidian Turbocharged 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).

Explore Obsidian Turbocharged Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Exomem Knowledge & Memory	Obsidian Turbocharged Knowledge & Memory
Summary	Local Markdown/Obsidian knowledge substrate for MCP agents with governed memory and hybrid search.	Model-agnostic, agent-ready Obsidian MCP server with RBAC, SLSA provenance, and native search.
Category & Scope	Knowledge & Memory	Knowledge & Memory

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": {
    "exomem": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "exomem"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "obsidian-turbocharged": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "obsidian-tc"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons