Bisibility vs Gmail Autoauth
Bisibility scores 30 points higher on the same evidence, which is a real separation rather than noise. Both are measured the same way, on the same day, from public evidence only — so this is a comparison of two measurements rather than two marketing pages. How we measure ›
| Bisibility | Gmail Autoauth | what it means | |
|---|---|---|---|
| tashan score | 67 | 37 | upkeep + freshness, gated by adoption |
| Adoption evidence | 1k/wk | 34k/wk | the raw public signal the score came from |
| Last release | active | abandoned | npm publish or repo push |
| Upkeep | 66 | 41 | cadence, maintainers, status |
| Expertise grade | not graded | not graded | an LLM read of its own documentation against a fixed rubric |
| Security audit | no known advisories, no build provenance | no known advisories, no build provenance | a summary — the full audit, free, is on each dossier |
| Licence | — | ISC | |
| Maintainers | one primary | one primary | bus-factor risk |
Install either
Bisibility
claude mcp add bisibility-mcp -- npx -y @bisibility/mcpGmail Autoauth
claude mcp add gongrzhe-server-gmail-autoauth -- npx -y @gongrzhe/server-gmail-autoauth-mcpNeither score is a security verdict — "well maintained" and "nothing known is wrong" are different claims, which is why the audit is a separate row and never folded into the number. The full audit for each — the advisory ids, the version that fixes them and anything that runs at install time — is free on its own page: Bisibility · Gmail Autoauth.