Python 2.0x faster throughput.
2.0x faster throughput.
Production HTTP transport.
ZeroMCP vs zeromcp-mrexodia — HTTP benchmarks.
Throughput
3.53K req/s ZeroMCP
vs. 1.80K req/s mrexodia
Memory
30 MB ZeroMCP
vs. 13 MB mrexodia
HTTP Performance — Head to Head
Same hello tool. Same methodology. 5-minute sustained load in Docker. Starlette for ZeroMCP, built-in transport for zeromcp-mrexodia.
req/s p50 p99 Memory CPU
ZeroMCP (Starlette) 3.53K 0.27ms 0.57ms 30 MB 0.28%
zeromcp-mrexodia 1.80K 0.45ms 1.24ms 13 MB 0.04%
The tradeoff
Choose mrexodia
If memory footprint is your top priority. 13 MB is hard to beat. Great for resource-constrained environments.
- 13 MB memory footprint
- Lightweight built-in transport
- Great for resource-constrained environments
Choose ZeroMCP
If you need production throughput. 2.0x faster on Starlette with enforced sandboxing and credential injection.
- 0 dependencies
- File-based tools — drop a .py file, it's live
- Starlette + FastAPI + Flask
- Built-in sandbox with enforced permissions
- 3.53K req/s on Starlette