Mcp Bastion vs TrustNotch — MCP Server Comparison | AllMCPs
Side-by-Side Model Context Protocol Comparison
Mcp Bastion vs TrustNotch
In-depth architectural comparison of the Mcp Bastion and TrustNotch 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
Mcp Bastion
Security · Local stdio
Quality: 47/100 (Fair) | Auth: No auth required
TrustNotch
Security · Remote HTTP/SSE
Quality: 30/100 (Emerging) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose Mcp Bastion if you need specialized Security tools running via a local process. Choose TrustNotch if your workspace requires Security integration with remote web transport. Both servers can be configured concurrently in your client's mcpServers manifest.
Which MCP Server Should You Choose?
M
Choose Mcp Bastion when:
You need dedicated capabilities in the Security domain.
You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
Mcp Bastion is categorized under Security and uses a local stdio subprocess. In contrast, TrustNotch belongs to Security using remote streaming HTTP/SSE transport. Select Mcp Bastion when you need capabilities focused on security and TrustNotch when you require tools for security.