Weavatrix Quality vs QualityMax QA MCP

In-depth architectural comparison of the Weavatrix Quality and QualityMax QA MCP 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?

W

Choose Weavatrix Quality when:

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

Explore Weavatrix Quality Details

Choose QualityMax QA MCP when:

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

Explore QualityMax QA MCP Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	W Weavatrix Quality Browser Automation	QualityMax QA MCP Browser Automation
Summary	Revision-bound quality planning, execution, evidence, proof, and Playwright authoring.	Local QA MCP: scan URLs, inspect pages, generate Playwright repros, and run tests.
Category & Scope	Browser Automation	Browser Automation

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": {
    "weavatrix-quality": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "weavatrix-quality"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "qualitymax-qa-mcp": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@qualitymax/qmax-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons