Glama MCP directory alternative: Glama vs AIPx

Glama is an MCP server directory and a hosted MCP and AI product, while AIPx is a gateway over a developer’s connected accounts. The directory helps you find a server; hosting helps you run one; account policy decides which agent may use which connected tool. These are related jobs, and you can use a directory alongside a gateway.

The official directory and pricing pages were checked on October 14, 2026. This comparison does not reduce Glama to a passive list or claim that its hosted products cannot execute tools.

Glama vs AIPx: feature table

Need	Glama	AIPx
Discover public servers	Public MCP server directory	Curated supported integration catalog
Host a server	Hosted server instances, including public-repository deployment	Does not host arbitrary application code
Open-source hosting	Free open-source hosting advertised	Connect compatible remote MCP endpoints
AI/chat product	Hosted AI product and plan credits	Use your own compatible agent or client
Personal account access	Depends on the chosen server and setup	Connect supported accounts once
Tool policy	Verify server and hosting controls	Allow, Confirm or Hide per tool, account and agent
Human approval	Check client and server behavior	Client-dependent Confirm hint on selected calls
Audit	Verify hosted records and retention	Agent, tool, account, parameters, result and time
Operating work	Server selection, configuration and hosting setup	Account connection and agent policy setup
Price basis	Hosted server instances and included AI credits	Free or $3/month Pro

The server directory addresses discovery, while Glama pricing includes hosting. A server found through a directory may use its own authentication method, permissions and deployment requirements. The directory listing does not automatically establish the server’s suitability for your data.

A practical example is a small MCP service wrapping an internal status API. If you need somewhere to run its code, hosting is the immediate requirement. A gateway endpoint alone will not deploy that code. If the service is already hosted and you need account-specific agent rules around supported tools, the access layer becomes a separate decision.

Glama pricing compared

The checked plan table lists Starter at $9 per month with three hosted servers, Pro at $26 with ten, and Business at $80 with thirty. Plans include AI credits. Additional hosted servers are listed at $4, $3 and $2 per server respectively across those tiers. The relevant unit is a server instance, rather than a charge per tool call. Source: official pricing.

Free open-source MCP hosting is also advertised. Check the current eligibility and deployment terms for the project you want to host. A public open-source server and a private service holding account credentials can have different operational requirements; free hosting should not be assumed to cover every private workload.

AIPx Free includes up to three connected accounts and one agent. Pro is $3 per month for unlimited connected accounts and agents, including Pro integrations. See pricing for the plan. The model and upstream application bills are separate.

These totals are not a direct hosting price competition. A gateway subscription does not buy a server runtime, and a hosted server allowance does not necessarily supply the same per-account and per-agent policy model. Compare the complete path: where the server runs, where credentials live, which host invokes it and where approval is enforced.

If your task is simply finding a reliable public server, directory browsing may already solve it without either subscription. If the server’s official hosted endpoint meets your requirements, connecting directly can also be simpler than adding another layer. Add infrastructure when it supplies a boundary you can explain.

When Glama is the better choice

Choose Glama for MCP server discovery. A public catalog can help you inspect options, repositories and deployment approaches before deciding which service to trust. Follow the linked project documentation and review its maintainers, release activity and credential requirements.

Use its hosting offerings when running a server is the actual job. This is particularly relevant to public open-source projects eligible for the advertised free hosting. You still own the tool design: input validation, error behavior, upstream permissions and sensitive-data handling do not disappear when the process runs elsewhere.

The hosted AI/chat product can also matter. A developer looking for an integrated environment with model access has different needs from someone already using Claude Code, Cursor or Codex. AIPx supplies tool access for your client; it is not a model subscription or general chat product.

Choose AIPx when supported integrations match your accounts and you want separate rules for each configured agent. You may allow a research assistant to read one account while requiring confirmation for a planning assistant’s calendar writes. Connecting accounts once can be useful, but the smaller catalog and hosted trust boundary remain real tradeoffs.

The two products can complement each other. Discover a server in a directory, inspect its documentation and decide how to host or connect it. That does not imply every listed server is compatible with AIPx or that there is a built-in direct integration between the platforms.

Inspect a server before handing it credentials

Begin with its execution model. Does it run locally, on a hosted instance or at an official remote endpoint? A local executable gains access to its process environment and filesystem permissions. A remote service receives requests and may hold or use delegated credentials. Each adds a different trust boundary.

Check the actual operations. A server’s name may suggest read access, while individual tools can write, delete or send content. Review schemas and descriptions rather than trusting a category label. An “integration” is not a unit of risk; the operation and selected account are the useful units.

Run a small trial with non-sensitive data. Invoke one read, one controlled failure and, if required, one harmless write. Inspect what the client displays and what the operator can observe. A clear error is preferable to a result that makes the model guess whether a write occurred.

When hosting, decide how secrets are configured, rotated and removed. Avoid embedding them in public repositories or example configuration. If a project needs a token with broad upstream rights, a convenient deployment should not be mistaken for a reason to grant those rights.

Other Glama alternatives

Smithery is relevant for discovering and publishing servers in its ecosystem. Current ownership and pricing should be checked because the project joined Arcade in 2026.

MCPJungle suits operators building a self-hosted registry and proxy for internal services. Its deployment and access policies belong to your team.

Obot suits organization-wide gateway administration, identity integration and server governance. Hosted and self-hosted options offer different operational choices.

Composio provides developer integration toolkits and account authentication. It can be useful when the required capability is an embedded customer integration rather than hosting a custom server process.

Pipedream offers broad hosted tools with managed authentication. Its documented free personal MCP path may meet a personal integration need without custom server hosting.

For account routing and permission decisions, read MCP gateway. Keep discovery, hosting, model access and account authorization separate in your requirements so that a comparison of subscriptions reflects the work you actually need done.

Further reading

zapier alternative.

AIPx Allow and Confirm are execution hints. Confirm advertises approval intent in tool metadata, and whether a call is reviewed depends on the client. Hide is enforced server-side and removes the tool from the agent surface; do not treat Confirm as a universal gateway approval gate. Test the actual client behavior before relying on review.