CAIN-42 CAIN StudioHow CAIN-42 compares
CAIN-42 vs MCP gateways (Okta / Cloudflare / Ping)
Identity platforms now ship MCP gateways that put a policy point in front of MCP servers, validate tokens and audit calls. CAIN-42 also fronts the tool call, but adds quorum-ordered authorization and a verifiable per-action receipt.
At a glance
What MCP gateways does well
- Deep integration with existing identity providers and enterprise SSO.
- Familiar gateway/OAuth 2.0 enforcement for MCP traffic.
- Established platforms and enterprise trust.
What CAIN-42 does differently
- Enforces at the tool-call boundary, before anything runs.
- Orders authorization through a Byzantine quorum (3-of-4), so a single yes is never enough.
- Leaves a per-action signed receipt you can verify offline with a clean-room verifier.
- Self-serve from $19.75/mo; the free tier includes the whole decision path.
- Runs hosted, self-hosted, or air-gapped on your own KMS root of trust.
Capability difference
| Capability | CAIN-42 | MCP gateways |
|---|---|---|
| Blocks the tool call at the boundary | Yes | Yes |
| Byzantine-ordered authorization (quorum cert) | Yes | No |
| Per-action signed receipt, offline-verifiable | Yes | No |
| Identity / SSO integration | Yes (API keys, agent passports) | Yes (core strength) |
| Audit trail of agent calls | Yes (signed evidence) | Yes (access logs) |
| Self-serve start | Yes | Talk to sales |
When to pick which
Pick an Okta/Cloudflare/Ping MCP gateway when the requirement is identity-aware access to MCP servers. Pick CAIN-42 when the requirement is governing the consequence of the call — ordered authorization, sandboxed execution and an offline-verifiable receipt.
Based on each vendor's public homepage/product pages (reviewed 2026-10-14). No affiliation and no claim about their internals. Source: vendor source page, verified 2026-10-14.