Tech Risk vs Markifact: AI Performance Marketing

In-depth architectural comparison of the Tech Risk and Markifact: AI Performance Marketing 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?

T

Choose Tech Risk when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Finance & Fintech domain.
• You prefer remote streaming HTTP/SSE transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Tech Risk Details

Choose Markifact: AI Performance Marketing when:

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

Explore Markifact: AI Performance Marketing Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	T Tech Risk Finance & Fintech	Markifact: AI Performance Marketing Finance & Fintech
Summary	Scan any MCP server for tool-poisoning, prompt-injection & exfiltration risk (OWASP LLM01/LLM08).	AI marketing agent for Google Ads, Meta, GA4, TikTok, LinkedIn, Shopify, HubSpot and more.
Category & Scope	Finance & Fintech	Finance & Fintech

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": {
    "tech-risk": {
      "url": "https://x402-data-api.sigrunner.workers.dev"
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "markifact-ai-performance-marketing": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "skills"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons