Side-by-Side Model Context Protocol Comparison
OrcaVault vs Superlocalmemory
In-depth architectural comparison of the OrcaVault and Superlocalmemory 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
OrcaVault
Knowledge & Memory · Remote HTTP/SSE
Quality: 29/100 (Emerging) | Auth: No auth required
Superlocalmemory
Knowledge & Memory · Local stdio
Quality: 51/100 (Good) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose OrcaVault if you need specialized Knowledge & Memory tools running via a hosted cloud SSE transport. Choose Superlocalmemory 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?
O
Choose OrcaVault when:
- You need dedicated capabilities in the Knowledge & Memory domain.
- You prefer remote streaming HTTP/SSE transport architecture.
- Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
S
Choose Superlocalmemory 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).
Feature & Specification Comparison
Tools & Capabilities Breakdown
OrcaVault Tools (0)
No explicit tool names declared in metadata yet. Check project README on main listing page.
Superlocalmemory Tools (0)
No explicit tool names declared in metadata yet. Check project README on main listing page.
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).
OrcaVault Configuration
Superlocalmemory Configuration