Composio vs Nango
A side-by-side comparison of Composio and Nango, 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 | Nango |
|---|---|---|
| Category | MCP | MCP |
| Pricing | FREEMIUM | FREEMIUM |
| License (differs) | Open core | Proprietary |
| Deployment (differs) | Cloud | Hybrid |
| Platforms (differs) | API | Web, API, CLI |
| Model support | Model-agnostic | Model-agnostic |
| Vendor (differs) | Composio | Nango |
| 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
Nango
You write integration logic as plain TypeScript, or generate it with AI, instead of being limited to a fixed catalog of prebuilt connectors.
- Self-hostable integration runtime
- 800+ API integrations
- MCP server and tool calling for agents
- Handles auth, syncs, and webhooks
- Elastic License, not OSI open source
- Usage-metered pricing adds up
- Integrations need maintenance
When to pick which
Both cover Tool / function calling.
Pick Composio if you need MCP gateway / registry.
- MCP gateway / registry (secondary capability)
Pick Nango if you need MCP server and ETL / data pipeline.
- MCP server (primary capability)
- ETL / data pipeline (secondary capability)
They also differ on:
- License
- Open core · Proprietary
- Deployment
- Cloud · Hybrid
- Platforms
- API · Web, API, CLI