Willow Admin Console

A managed access and enablement control plane for the whole organization. It provides employee self-service, machine users, fine-grained per-agent and per-action policy, endpoint discovery of shadow AI, and IT-run identity and lifecycle. It deploys anywhere, including air-gapped and the EU, and it is proven at Wix across roughly 5,000 weekly active users.

MintMCP Gateway

An enterprise MCP gateway and governance control plane built for speed of deployment. It hosts MCP servers with OAuth brokering, bundles connectors into Virtual MCP servers with curated tool sets, gives every agent its own credentials and scoped permissions through agent identities, and tracks every tool call through its LLM Proxy. It holds SOC 2 Type 2, HIPAA, and CASA Tier 2, and it is built by founders from Google Brain.

Willow vs MintMCP, side by side

Who Willow is built for

Organizations bringing AI to every team, where the job is larger than hosting servers. It fits when you need:

• To see the unmanaged AI your employees are already running, before the first incident
• Deployment on-premises, air-gapped, or in the EU, delivered as a supported service
• To turn internal REST APIs into governed MCPs rather than writing servers first
• AI governance managed as code in Git, with pull-request review across the full configuration
• A build stack of skills, plugins, and toolkits sitting above the catalog

Who MintMCP is built for

Platform and engineering teams that want governed MCP hosting running quickly, without a long deployment project. It fits when:

• Your buyers are the teams running coding agents and ChatGPT
• HIPAA or CASA Tier 2 is a procurement requirement
• You want SCIM 2.0 group sync and Okta Cross App Access wiring agents to real user identity
• A managed cloud service meets your security team’s requirements
• You want cost analytics broken down per team, project, and tool

Governed Background Agents

Autonomous agents with their own identity, scoped to least privilege, and governed like every other call.

Willow approach

• Every background agent has its own identity and access key, so it authenticates as itself and its capabilities define its blast radius.
• Scope each agent to the exact tools, skills, and rules it needs, and nothing more.
• Run agents on any platform, including custom runtimes, Claude Managed Agents, and AWS AgentCore.
• Every call passes through the gateway under the same guards, policy, and logging as any other traffic.
• A risk-scored inventory answers which agents can touch a given system.

MintMCP approach

• Agent identities treat each agent as its own principal, with a separate identity, scoped permissions, and a dedicated audit trail.
• They ship as agent bundles, where each connection carries its own delegated credential, so one agent can read CRM records and draft emails while another can only read.
• Through Okta Cross App Access, an agent connects on scoped, short-lived tokens rather than standing API keys, with every connection logged against an identity.
• Coworker Agents run on MintMCP’s hosted runner in an isolated sandbox with restricted network egress, triggered by Slack mention, cron, or manually, and are in beta on Enterprise and Teams plans.

Bottom line

Both give agents real identity rather than shared keys, both scope permissions per agent, and MintMCP’s delegated-credential model through Okta Cross App Access is a genuinely strong version of that. Two differences favor Willow. Willow’s background agents are generally available while Coworker Agents are in beta, and Willow’s agents run on any platform rather than only on the vendor’s own runner.

Infrastructure as Code

Manage your whole AI configuration the way engineering manages everything else, as code in Git.

Willow approach

• Sync your toolkits, skills, commands, MCP servers, and clients to a GitHub repository as version-controlled files.
• Review every change through pull requests, and keep a full history of who changed what.
• Two-way sync keeps Willow and the repository in step, so a change in either place flows to the other.
• Authentication secrets are never written to the repository, so the configuration is safe to store.

MintMCP approach

• MintMCP ships a Terraform provider to manage its security policies as version-controlled Terraform configurations.
• It supports terraform plan and terraform apply, with drift detection, so plan shows exactly what has drifted from the declared state.
• It currently manages one resource, global rules that monitor LLM traffic for secrets and prompt injection.
• Configuration as Code is available to enterprise organizations.

Bottom line

Both publish to employees and keep admins in control, and MintMCP’s Virtual MCP bundles and speed of setup are real advantages worth weighing. Two differences favor Willow. Enterprise SSO and SCIM are included rather than gated, so identity-driven provisioning and offboarding work from day one. And the access model has a middle setting: on MintMCP a user can use a Virtual MCP or not, while Willow adds a per-user policy of none, needs-approval, or allow, with a require-approval guard that holds a tool call for an approver rather than asking the end user to confirm their own request.

Self-Service and IT Approval Workflows

Employees self-serve the tools they need, and IT approves once instead of drowning in tickets.

Willow approach

• Employees browse approved tools in the Connect Panel and marketplace and connect any AI client in one click, with no IT ticket.
• IT approves the catalog once, and sets a per-user policy of none, needs-approval, or allow for user-added MCPs.
• A require-approval guard holds a specific tool call pending a decision, with an approval page showing what fired and why.
• When your identity provider deprovisions a user through SCIM, Willow removes that user, and access flowing through their groups goes with it.

MintMCP approach

• MintMCP publishes a hosted MCP store and bundles connectors into Virtual MCP servers, each one endpoint with a curated tool set, so sales sees CRM tools and engineers see code tools.
• Access is set by policies on each Virtual MCP that typically reference directory groups, with individual users granted access on top to handle exceptions.
• Admins can require manual approval before newly added connector tools are exposed, and a monitoring rule can pause a tool call for the user to approve it.
• SSO and SCIM directory sync require enterprise access rather than coming with the standard plan.

Bottom line

Both publish to employees and keep admins in control, and MintMCP’s Virtual MCP bundles and speed of setup are real advantages worth weighing. Two differences favor Willow. Enterprise SSO and SCIM are included rather than gated, so identity-driven provisioning and offboarding work from day one. And the access model has a middle setting: on MintMCP a user can use a Virtual MCP or not, while Willow adds a per-user policy of none, needs-approval, or allow, with a require-approval guard that holds a tool call for an approver rather than asking the end user to confirm their own request.

Guards and DLP

A configurable content layer that redacts, blocks, warns, or requires approval on prompts and actions.

Willow approach

• Guards inspect every tool call and response at runtime, and inspect content before it is published at build-time.
• Built-in detectors cover secrets and PII, and you can add regex, JSONata, LLM, or custom function checks.
• When a guard fires it can redact the sensitive part, warn, require approval, or block.
• Where several guards fire on one call, the most restrictive outcome wins.

MintMCP approach

• The LLM Proxy tracks every tool invocation, bash command, and file operation across all coding assistants.
• Agent Monitor rules detect credentials being sent to models and potential injection attempts, and can log without blocking, stop the prompt or tool call, redact matching content, alert a Slack channel, or pause the call for the user to approve.
• Rules evaluate at runtime through pre-tool and post-tool hooks.
• Hooks can be pushed to developer machines through Kandji, Intune, or Jamf.

Bottom line

Both run real runtime enforcement with PII and secret handling, both can log, redact, block, or pause for approval, and neither should be sold as a proven defense against encoded prompt injection. Willow’s distinction is when the inspection happens. MintMCP’s rules evaluate as tools execute. Willow also inspects at build-time, so non-compliant content is caught before it ever reaches a user’s AI client.

ROI and Cost Optimization

See where tokens go and cut them, not just report the spend.

Willow approach

• Token Usage Analytics shows where tokens come from across MCP servers, toolkits, skills, and tool responses, by team, tool, and use case.
• Reduce cost by tightening toolkits and moving long skill content into references.
• Optimize the tool-response output format, including JSON Compact, CSV, YAML, or TOON.
• The result is fewer tokens per call, not only a report of what was spent.

MintMCP approach

• MintMCP treats tool curation as context control, on the basis that every tool you enable adds tokens to the agent’s context.
• Admins toggle tools on or off, with bulk controls to enable all read-only tools or disable all modifying ones.
• Cost analytics break spend down per team, project, and tool.
• An LLM proxy routes and monitors model traffic so spend is visible in one place.

Bottom line

Both reduce the context an agent carries by curating which tools it can see, and MintMCP’s cost analytics per team, project, and tool are clear and genuinely useful. Willow’s addition is on the response side: it optimizes the format tool responses come back in, which cuts tokens returned on every call rather than only the tokens spent describing tools. Neither product sets hard spend limits.

Why enterprises pick Willow

We are six to ten months ahead of most companies in AI adoption. More code to production, fewer incidents, real outcomes. Willow is what made it possible to move that fast without slowing down our security posture.

Asaf Yonay, Head of AI Core, Wix

Wix needed a secure, governed way to connect employees and agents to internal tools, documentation, and workflows. With Willow, the AI Core team built the enterprise MCP infrastructure that now supports nearly 600 tools and 300,000+ weekly tool calls across engineering, product, design, HR, finance, legal, and business teams.

FAQS

Common questions from teams choosing between Willow and MintMCP.

What is the difference between Willow and MintMCP?

MintMCP is an enterprise MCP gateway built for fast managed hosting, with OAuth brokering, Virtual MCP servers bundling connectors into single endpoints, per-agent identities, and runtime monitoring, delivered as a managed cloud service. Willow is an organization-wide AI access and enablement platform, with employee self-service, a curated and risk-scored catalog, endpoint shadow-AI discovery, API-to-MCP conversion, governance as code through GitHub, and deployment anywhere including on-premises, air-gapped, and the EU. Willow fits organizations governing AI adoption across many teams rather than hosting MCP servers for one.

Is MintMCP a Willow alternative?

Yes, they are category-direct. Both sit between AI clients and the tools those clients reach, both broker identity, and both log every call. They optimize for different things. MintMCP optimizes for getting governed hosting running quickly with strong certifications behind it. Willow optimizes for governing and enabling AI across the whole organization, including the AI that is running outside the gateway.

Which is better for enterprise AI governance, Willow or MintMCP?

It depends on the job. If your priority is fast managed MCP hosting, a deep identity story spanning SAML, OIDC, and SCIM 2.0 across ten identity providers, and HIPAA or CASA Tier 2 certification for a regulated procurement, MintMCP is strong there. If your priority is seeing the unmanaged AI already running on employee devices, deploying on-premises or air-gapped, converting internal REST APIs into governed MCPs, and managing AI governance as reviewed code in Git, Willow is the better fit.

Which has stronger compliance certifications, Willow or MintMCP?

MintMCP does, and this is a real advantage to weigh. MintMCP's trust center lists SOC 2 Type 2, HIPAA, and CASA Tier 2. Willow holds SOC 2 Type II and GDPR, offers EU data residency, and does not hold HIPAA or CASA Tier 2 today. If a HIPAA attestation is a hard procurement requirement, MintMCP meets it and Willow does not. Where Willow adds compliance value is in deployment, because an on-premises or air-gapped deployment keeps regulated data inside your own environment entirely.

Does Willow detect shadow AI?

Yes. Willow's endpoint scan agent discovers unmanaged MCPs, skills, and AI agents across web and local usage, with risk scoring, and a browser extension adds visibility into web AI usage. This extends to vibe app monitoring, tracking employee use of vibe-coding app builders like Lovable and Base44 and flagging when those apps are hooked into internal systems. MintMCP reaches endpoints too, pushing monitoring hooks to developer machines through Kandji, Intune, or Jamf, but those hooks instrument a coding agent it already knows about rather than searching for ones it does not. So the unmanaged MCP a developer configured locally and never routed through MintMCP stays invisible to it. That is the capability difference, and it favors Willow.

How is each one deployed?

MintMCP is available as a managed cloud service, with self-hosting listed on its pricing page and on-premises arranged on request, and it can be set up quickly. Willow deploys as SaaS, dedicated cloud, on-premises on AWS, GCP, or Azure, hybrid, and air-gapped, with EU residency, all delivered as a managed service, and it typically goes live in about ten days.

Can I migrate from MintMCP to Willow?

Yes. You can bring your configuration over by adding your MCP servers from the catalog, as custom servers, or through the API, importing your skills from a GitHub repository, and importing your users, so Willow can run alongside your existing setup while you transition.