Composio vs Glama
A side-by-side comparison of Composio and Glama, two MCP tools, drawn from Ignaite's continuously-verified listings.
Compared from listings verified as of
Composio
MCPAuthenticated toolkits that give AI agents access to SaaS apps, via MCP or API.
View ComposioAt a glance
| Attribute | Composio | Glama |
|---|---|---|
| Category | MCP | MCP |
| Pricing | FREEMIUM | FREEMIUM |
| License (differs) | Open core | Proprietary |
| Deployment | Cloud | Cloud |
| Platforms (differs) | API | Web, API |
| Model support | Model-agnostic | Model-agnostic |
| Vendor (differs) | Composio | Glama |
| Capabilities (differs) |
|
|
The honest brief
Composio
Handles per-integration OAuth so agents get authenticated, production-ready tools instead of raw API stubs to wire up.
- 1000+ managed toolkits, 20,000+ tools
- MCP Gateway endpoint per team
- MCP and direct-API access
- Free tier covers 20K tool calls/mo
- Cloud-managed auth means some lock-in
- Free tier caps tool calls
- Tool quality varies by integration
Glama
Superset of the official MCP registry that scores servers and lets you test any of them in an ephemeral browser sandbox.
- Indexes 10000+ MCP servers, security-scored
- In-browser Inspector for live tool calls
- Gateway adds auth, logs, access control
- Hosting for private/public servers
- Hosting and Gateway features are paid
- Quality varies across indexed servers
- Cloud-centric, not a local tool
When to pick which
Both cover MCP gateway / registry.
Pick Composio if you need Tool / function calling.
- Tool / function calling (primary capability)
Glama leans on MCP gateway / registry as a headline capability; Composio treats it as secondary.
- MCP gateway / registry (primary capability)
They also differ on:
- License
- Open core · Proprietary
- Platforms
- API · Web, API