MCP Comparison · 2026
Hostinger vs Name.com MCP Server
Comparing Hostinger and Name.com as MCP servers? Hostinger (manage hostinger domains and hosting) is best when end-to-end domain → dns → deploy in one server. Name.com (manage name.com domains) is best when sandbox-first registration flows. Both run as Model Context Protocol servers and can coexist in the same client. Updated 2026.
Side-by-side specs
Pulled from each MCP's verified fact sheet.
| Hostinger | Name.com | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary function | Manage Hostinger Domains and Hosting | Manage Name.com Domains |
| Maintainer | Hostinger | Name.com |
| Pricing | Freemium | Freemium |
| Setup complexity | Medium · ~10 min | Low · ~5 min |
| Transport | stdio, Streamable HTTP | stdio |
| Auth model | OAuth 2.1 | API key |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | TypeScript | TypeScript |
| Latest version | latest | latest |
| Compatible clients | Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Windsurf, Any MCP-compatible client, Hostinger accounts | Claude, Cursor, Any MCP-compatible client, Name.com accounts |
| Last verified | 2026-09-29 | 2026-09-29 |
Which one should you pick?
Decision rubric drawn from each MCP's documented strengths.
Choose Hostinger
- End-to-end domain → DNS → deploy in one server
- AI-assisted domain name suggestions from a project description
- DNS zone snapshots and point-in-time restore
Choose Name.com
- Sandbox-first registration flows
- DNS and DNSSEC management
- Domain transfers in, with eligibility checks
Pick something else if…
- Accounts held at another registrar or host
- Operations outside Name.com's API surface
Feature breakdown
Key capabilities each server ships out of the box.
Hostinger
- Three tools — `search`, `execute`, `multi-execute` — over 403 API operations (v2.4.0, probed 2026-09-29)
- Per-product entry points so you can install one slice
- OAuth 2.0 + PKCE by default; `HOSTINGER_API_TOKEN` bypasses it for CI
- stdio and HTTP transports (`--http`)
- MIT, released almost daily
Name.com
- Vendor-published server (github.com/namedotcom/namecom-mcp), MIT, TypeScript
- 18 grouped tools with an `operation` parameter, verified by probe on v1.2.1
- Defaults to the test environment (mcp.dev.name.com)
- `NAME_USERNAME` + `NAME_TOKEN` auth
- Marked experimental by Name.com
Install snippets
Open the detail page for ready-to-paste config for every major client.
FAQ
Hostinger vs Name.com: which MCP server should I use?
Pick Hostinger when end-to-end domain → dns → deploy in one server. Pick Name.com when sandbox-first registration flows. Hostinger is built for manage hostinger domains and hosting, while Name.com focuses on manage name.com domains.
Can I run both Hostinger and Name.com together?
Yes. MCP clients run each server as a separate process and surface every server's tools simultaneously, so you can install both and let your agent decide which to call. Be deliberate with auth scopes when stacking servers.
Which is easier to set up, Hostinger or Name.com?
Name.com has the lighter setup. Hostinger reports medium complexity (~10 min); Name.com reports low complexity (~5 min).
More Hostinger comparisons
Browse all Domains MCPs? See the full ranked list →