MintMCP vs LiteLLM MCP Gateway
AI assistants are most useful when they can access internal data and tools via MCP. MCP gateways help to make that process easier by managing connections and authentication for your organization. This article compares LiteLLM's MCP offering as part of their LLM proxy to the MintMCP - a gateway built specifically for enterprises using MCP internally.
Key Takeaways
- Fundamental difference: LiteLLM is an LLM proxy with MCP added, MintMCP is purpose-built for MCP
- Custom MCP servers: With LiteLLM you deploy and manage them yourself, MintMCP runs them in their cloud
- Authentication: LiteLLM uses pass-through auth (you manage credentials), MintMCP provides managed OAuth
- Best fit: LiteLLM for developer teams building products, MintMCP for internal enterprise deployments
Authentication Architecture
| Aspect | LiteLLM MCP Gateway | MintMCP |
|---|---|---|
| OAuth Scope | Proxy-level OAuth 2.0 (enterprise feature) | Native MCP OAuth for tool access |
| MCP Server Auth | Pass-through headers (x-mcp-github-token) | Managed centrally by platform |
| Auth Pattern | Each server handles auth independently | Complete OAuth flow for all tools |
| Access Control | URL (/mcp/github,jira) or header-based | Virtual server with fine-grained permissions |
| Token Management | You manage credentials | Automatic token refresh |
| SSO Integration | At proxy level | Direct SAML/SSO for MCP access |
| Key Difference | You manage MCP credentials | Platform manages everything |
They key difference here is around authentication support. If you require SAML/SSO with OAuth in the gateway to manage access for your enterprise users, MintMCP has good options for that. If your users are able to manage API keys in their local configurations, LiteLLM could be sufficient.
Deployment Architecture
| Aspect | LiteLLM MCP Gateway | MintMCP |
|---|---|---|
| Model | Open source, self-managed | Managed service |
| Hosting Options | Self-host or use their cloud | SaaS only (self-host on roadmap) |
| Infrastructure | Kubernetes, Docker, VMs | Managed cloud (SOC2 Type II) |
| Custom MCP Servers | You deploy and manage | Runs in MintMCP's cloud |
| Scaling | You configure horizontal scaling | Platform handles scaling |
| Updates | You manage | Vendor managed |
LiteLLM is an open source project, which gives you the ability to self-host and make changes as needed. If you need to make significant customizations to the gateway, it would a better option.
MintMCP is a managed cloud SaaS, which works out of the box. One key difference is that MintMCP also includes the ability to run "local" / open source MCP servers in the cloud for your team - instead of having your users run these servers on their desktop, MintMCP will host them and secure access.
MCP Implementation Features
| Feature | LiteLLM MCP Gateway | MintMCP |
|---|---|---|
| Design Philosophy | MCP added to existing LLM proxy | Built specifically for MCP |
| Custom MCP Servers | You deploy and manage yourself | Runs your servers in their cloud |
| Access Model | Namespace-based (/mcp/server) | Virtual server abstraction |
| Permission Scope | Filter by keys, teams, orgs | Role-based at tool level |
| Transport Support | HTTP, SSE, stdio | HTTP, SSE, stdio |
| Header Handling | Forwards client headers | Manages internally |
| Access Groups | Logical server grouping | Virtual servers with custom permissions |
| Audit Capabilities | Build your own | Complete logging built-in |
| Rate Limiting | Proxy-level | Per-user and per-virtual-server |
| Compliance | You implement | SOC2 Type II, HIPAA options |
Decision Framework
| Requirement | LiteLLM MCP Gateway | MintMCP |
|---|---|---|
| Self-hosting control | ✅ Full OSS | ❌ SaaS with self-hosted options |
| Managed OAuth for MCP | ❌ You implement | ✅ Fully managed |
| Managed custom MCP servers | ❌ You deploy | ✅ Runs in their cloud |
| Audit trails today | ❌ You build it | ✅ Built-in |
| Compliance requirements | N/A (self-deployed) | ✅ SOC2 certified |
| MCP monitoring | Self setup | Included |
| Engineering resources required | Required | Not needed |
How to decide
If you're building an application that needs MCP servers as part of its functionality, LiteLLM makes sense. You'll deploy and manage the MCP servers alongside your application infrastructure, giving you full control over versioning, scaling, and integration. This is typical for SaaS products or developer tools where MCP is a feature of your offering.
For internal enterprise use cases where business teams need MCP access, MintMCP's managed approach is a better fit. They handle running your custom MCP servers in their cloud, which is a significant advantage when you don't have DevOps resources dedicated to MCP infrastructure. Teams can deploy custom tools and integrations without managing servers.
When audit trails and compliance are hard requirements, MintMCP provides these out of the box. While this comes at a higher cost than self-hosting LiteLLM, you avoid building and maintaining custom audit infrastructure.
Engineering teams building products choose LiteLLM for the control and flexibility, while internal IT teams deploying for business users prefer MintMCP for its managed nature and enterprise features.
Conclusion
Choose LiteLLM if you're building a product that needs MCP and you want full control over the infrastructure. You'll handle deployment, auth, and monitoring yourself.
Choose MintMCP if you need MCP for internal enterprise use. They manage your custom servers, OAuth, audit trails, and compliance - you just configure and use.
Both are solid choices for their respective use cases. Pick based on your actual needs: product development with full control (LiteLLM) or managed enterprise deployment (MintMCP).