Google Drive vs Filestash

In-depth architectural comparison of the Google Drive and Filestash 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 Google Drive when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the File Systems domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Google Drive Details

Choose Filestash when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the File Systems domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
• Primary tools included: Plugin-driven architecture for extensibility, Support for over 20 storage protocols including SFTP, FTP, SMB, S3, WebDAV, Git, and cloud providers, Universal access via web client, APIs, and protocol gateways.

Explore Filestash Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Google Drive File Systems	Filestash mickaelkerjean File Systems
Summary	Allow AI systems to list, search, upload, download, and manage files and folders in Google Drive.	Remote Storage Access: SFTP, S3, FTP, SMB, NFS, WebDAV, GIT, FTPS, gcloud, azure blob, sharepoint, etc.
Category & Scope	File Systems	File Systems

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": {
    "google-drive": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "google-drive"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "mickaelkerjean-filestash": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "mickaelkerjean-filestash"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons