codebase-memory-mcp vs Graft
Side-by-side comparison of two AI agent tools
Short answer
- codebase-memory-mcp is growing faster: +1,620 GitHub stars in the last 30 days vs +870 for Graft.
- Pick codebase-memory-mcp for: mCP server indexing codebases into a persistent knowledge graph with tree-sitter and hybrid LSP. Pick Graft for: turbocharge Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Gemini & every coding agent: faster, cheaper, with contextual.
From GitHub data refreshed daily.
c
codebase-memory-mcpopen-source
MCP server indexing codebases into a persistent knowledge graph with tree-sitter and hybrid LSP
G
Graftopen-source
Turbocharge Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Gemini & every coding agent: faster, cheaper, with contextual understanding specific to your codebase.
Metrics
| codebase-memory-mcp | Graft | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 45.7k | 9.5k |
| Star velocity /mo | 1.6k | 870 |
| Commits (90d) | 2.0k | 506 |
| Releases (6m) | 10 | 0 |
| Downloads (30d, npm + PyPI) | 64.6K | — |
| Overall score | 0.8944758248474755 | 0.7068809558403568 |
FAQ
- Which is more popular, codebase-memory-mcp or Graft?
- codebase-memory-mcp has more GitHub stars (45,713 vs 9,520).
- Which is more actively developed, codebase-memory-mcp or Graft?
- codebase-memory-mcp had more commits in the last 90 days (2,034 vs 506).
- Should I use codebase-memory-mcp or Graft?
- Compare their capabilities, limitations and "best for" notes above. Both are open source, so trying each on a small task is the fastest way to decide.