Honest comparison · v1 scope
How we compare — including where we're behind.
Every claim below is sourced and precise. The two dimensions no competitor offers are where we win; the two we park to Phase 2 are stated plainly.
| Dimension | mem0 | cognee | supermemory | zep | CrossTalk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical + crypto isolation | filter | filter | tags | project scope | schema+RLS+crypto |
| Buyer-runnable attestation | — | — | — | — | Ed25519 signed |
| Published recall benchmark | BEAM ~mid | BEAM 0.79* | — | Graphiti | Config B pending |
| Compliance certs (SOC2/HIPAA) | self-attested | — | SOC2 T2 | SOC2 Type II | Phase 2 |
| OSS / licensing | source-avail | Apache-2.0 | mixed | Graphiti Ap.2 | Apache-2.0 |
| Self-host / BYO-cloud | limited | yes | air-gapped | BYOC | Docker/Helm |
| MCP-native | OpenMemory | yes | yes | yes | RFC 9728 OAuth |
| Funding / maturity | ~$24M | ~$7.5M | funded | funded | solo/unfunded |
Where we're behind (stated plainly)
cognee publishes recall numbers today; ours (Config B) is in progress. mem0/zep/supermemory hold compliance certs we park to Phase 2. The isolation attestation is our moat — and it's absorbable, so speed + a named design-partner is the real defence.
* cognee's numbers are vendor self-reported / unaudited. mem0 issues #5439 (ranking-signal, content stays filtered) ≠ #3998 (closed plugin gap). Cited precisely, not overclaimed.