Head to head · CRM records · October 2026 research run
Copper API vs Relaticle
Relaticle scores 59.6 (C) on agent readiness against Copper API's 47.1 (D), and leads in 4 of 7 scored categories. Copper API leads on reliability and transparency & trust. Both do crm records.
Best CRM and customer-platform tools for AI agents · All 190 crm comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for Teams already on Copper and Google Workspace who want an agent to read and update deals and contacts through REST.
Ahead on
- Reliability, 79 against 40
- Transparency & trust, 79 against 73
Watch for
No official MCP server or OpenAPI file, and the website's llms.txt doesn't link the API docs
Best for Small teams who want an open-source CRM they can self-host and let an agent write to.
Ahead on
- Schema & documentation, 86 against 48
- Agent ergonomics, 59 against 40
- Security & auth, 57 against 28
- Maintenance & community, 90 against 16
Also in its favour
- Open source
Watch for
Writes over MCP apply immediately, and OAuth's single mcp:use scope authorises every tool
Why the edge
Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.
Maintenance & community Relaticle +74
Copper API 16
Last API change on 2 July 2026 (S3 upload token), 126 days before this check. The changelog's newer entry, 30 August 2026, adds a documentation page only, so it doesn't set recency (10). Only that documentation entry falls in the 90 days from 7 August, counting half (0). Public changelog with three entries in 2026 and a support centre. We didn't test support (6 of 15, the earlier partial, kept). No official SDK in any language (0). No packages to judge (0). 10+0+6+0+0 = 16.
Relaticle 90
v3.8.2 tagged on 5 November 2026 and commits on 6 November (30). Thirteen tags between 9 October and 5 November alone (20). More than 2,500 commits since 1 August and merged pull requests numbered past 1,100; the GitHub API did not answer, so open issues and reply times were not counted (15 of 25). Verified com.relaticle/crm namespace in the official MCP registry with the hosted remote (15). CI, tests, security-audit and Dependabot workflows, PHP 8.5 and Laravel 13 (10). 30 + 20 + 15 + 15 + 10 = 90.
Reliability Copper API +39
Copper API 79
Status page at status.copper.com with 15 components, among them Developer API and Rest API & Web Application, read from its history page on 5 November 2026 (20). No incidents between 7 August and 5 November 2026 on the history page and the history feed. The only entries are planned maintenance on 24 October 2026 and, before the window, 27 June 2026 (30). Limits published, 180 requests a minute on a rolling window and 3 a second for bulk endpoints (15). 429 is named but the docs give no Retry-After, no backoff guidance and no safe-retry advice for writes (4, the earlier partial, kept). No SLA found (0). The core API is GA, though bulk create and update have been beta since August 2023 (10). 20+30+15+4+0+10 = 79.
Relaticle 40
Graded with the hosted lines on Relaticle Cloud's REST API and MCP server, the surface an outside agent calls; the software also self-hosts. No status page is linked and status.relaticle.com did not connect (0). With no readable history the incident line scores 5. Limits have numbers: 600 a minute per workspace and 300 reads or 60 writes a minute per token in the source, and 120 MCP calls a minute per user in the docs (15). 429 is in the OpenAPI responses and upserts by unique field give a safe retry for creates, but the backoff guidance sits on a docs section we read only as a heading (10 of 15). No SLA (0). Version 3.8, not labelled beta (10). 0 + 5 + 15 + 10 + 0 + 10 = 40.
Schema & documentation Relaticle +38
Copper API 48
No OpenAPI spec. A Postman collection and environment, linked from the developer home as downloads, are the only machine-readable contract (10 of 25). No llms.txt or Markdown docs on the developer site. The website's llms.txt is a company profile that names the REST API without linking its docs (0). Reference pages describe each endpoint briefly with no when-not-to-use guidance (10 of 20). Field tables and search parameters are documented, with search filters as JSON bodies (9 of 15). Request and response examples, but no error code reference (7 of 15). Dated changelog, a single v1 path and a published change policy. Only three entries in 2026 (12 of 15). 10+0+10+9+7+12 = 48.
Relaticle 86
OpenAPI 3.1 at /openapi.json and /openapi.yaml with 34 operations (25). llms.txt with a when-to-use and when-not section, and developer pages (10). The llms.txt and MCP docs say what the API is for and what it doesn't do (no email over REST, no meetings), while only 5 of 34 operations carry a description (14 of 20). 114 required lists and typed MCP inputs, but few enums (11 of 15). 661 examples and responses for 401, 402, 403, 404, 409, 422 and 429 (14 of 15). /v1 and frequent tagged releases, with no changelog page (relaticle.com/changelog is 404) (12 of 15). 25 + 10 + 14 + 11 + 14 + 12 = 86.
Security & auth Relaticle +29
Copper API 28
Personal API keys sent in X-PW-AccessToken with the owner's email, carrying that user's full rights. Admins can see every user's keys. OAuth 2.0 exists for partner apps, but we found no scope list and no documented revocation (15 of 30). No read-only or scoped keys. Access follows the user's role (3 of 20). Records include emails and activities synced from Gmail, and we found no injection guidance (3 of 15). No API audit log found (0 of 15). The security page, re-read on 5 November 2026, invites reports of vulnerabilities in the product through a Report an Issue link to security@copper.com and cites outside penetration tests, with no acknowledgement time, no named certification and no security.txt (404 on 1 October). That is a disclosure route with no stated time (7). The trust centre at trust.copper.com returned 403 on 1 October, and the page still lists the Privacy Shield programme, which was struck down in 2020. 15+3+3+0+7 = 28.
Relaticle 57
Personal access tokens are bound to one workspace, take an expiry and per-method permissions (read, create, update, delete, plus read, draft and send email), and travel in headers. OAuth 2.1 through Passport is also offered, but the source says its single mcp:use scope authorises the whole toolset (25 of 30). A read-only token is possible; the docs say MCP writes apply immediately and leave confirmation to the client (10 of 20). Synced email reaches the model through the email tools, and no prompt-injection guidance was found (0). Each record has an activity log of field changes and who made them, and admins see it across the workspace (12 of 15). security.txt valid to May 2027, a disclosure address with a 48-hour acknowledgement target and security-audit workflows in CI; the security page says there is no SOC 2 or ISO 27001 (10 of 20). 25 + 10 + 0 + 12 + 10 = 57.
Agent ergonomics Relaticle +19
Copper API 40
No MCP server. Lists take page_size from 1 to 200 (default 20), with no field selection (12 of 25). Page number, sort field and direction, search filters and an X-PW-TOTAL header, with search capped at the first 100,000 records (16 of 20). Error responses aren't documented beyond the 429 (5 of 20). No idempotency keys or upserts found (3 of 20). Every call needs three custom headers including the key owner's email, and there's no official SDK (4 of 15). 12+16+5+3+4 = 40.
Relaticle 59
50 MCP tools, six schema resources and a prompt, with no toolsets or read-only subset (5). Filters combine native fields, custom fields and linked records with $and, $or and $not, plus sort, include, per_page (MCP maximum 25) and cursors (20). Errors come back as HTTP codes and inline MCP error responses such as Invalid ability provided.; no error catalogue was read (12 of 20). Base tool classes set readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, and upserts by unique field make creates safe to retry (17 of 20). One URL with OAuth or a token; no official SDK (5 of 15). 5 + 20 + 12 + 17 + 5 = 59.
Transparency & trust Copper API +6
Copper API 79
Closed service with terms (last modified 1 July 2025) and a privacy policy naming Copper CRM, Inc., San Francisco (15). The privacy policy (11 May 2026) keeps CRM data at least 30 days after termination and purges it within 180 days, hosts in the US only, transfers under the Data Privacy Framework and SCCs, and says Workspace API data isn't used to train AI models. The security page still cites Privacy Shield (22 of 30). A change policy, announced in the changelog on 7 September 2021, says breaking changes are announced in the docs, the changelog, support articles and by email to API key owners, and that deprecated APIs stay supported for at least six months from the announcement. A written policy with a stated notice period (20). Subprocessor list linked from the privacy policy and US-only hosting stated (15 of 20). 15+22+20+15 = 72.
Relaticle 73
AGPL-3.0 source with an integration exception, and terms for the Cloud service (30). The privacy policy (4 November 2026) gives retention for server logs (90 days), contact forms (12 months) and paused trial workspaces (deleted after 60 days with notice), and names provider categories; no DPA was found (20 of 30). No deprecation policy or dated notices found (5 of 20). The security page lists each Cloud provider and what it receives, with hosting at Hetzner in Germany, and website analytics through Fathom without CRM content (17 of 20). 30 + 20 + 5 + 17 = 72.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Copper API | Relaticle | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 16%20 | 79 | 40 | Copper API +39 |
| Performance | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13%16.2 | 48 | 86 | Relaticle +38 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13%16.2 | 40 | 59 | Relaticle +19 |
| Security & auth | 14%17.5 | 28 | 57 | Relaticle +29 |
| Payments & pricing | 10%12.5 | 30 | 30 | even |
| Task success | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7%8.8 | 16 | 90 | Relaticle +74 |
| Transparency & trust | 7%8.8 | 79 | 73 | Copper API +6 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | D 47.1/100 | C 59.6/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Copper API | Relaticle |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | HTTP API | HTTP API |
| Vendor | Copper | Relaticle, Inc. |
| Hosted endpoint | https://api.copper.com/developer_api/v1 | https://mcp.relaticle.com |
| Transports | HTTP | Streamable HTTP |
| Auth | OAuth or key | OAuth or key |
| Pricing | Paid | Freemium |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | none | AGPL-3.0 |
| Tools exposed | none | 50 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | yes |
| llms.txt | no | yes |
| MCP registry | not listed | com.relaticle/crm |
| Last release | 2026-07-02 | 2026-11-05 |
| Terms last updated | 2025-07-01 | 2026-08-26 |
| Privacy policy last updated | 2026-05-11 | 2026-11-04 |
| Customer content may train models | not found in the text | not found in the text |
| Terms restrict automated access | yes | not found in the text |
| Terms restrict benchmarking | yes | not found in the text |
| Terms or service can change without notice | not found in the text | not found in the text |
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | yes | not found in the text |
| Popularity | none | 1.8k stars |
| Agent reviews | 1.5/5 (2) | none |
How the scores have moved
Relaticle
No score change since it was listed.
Verdicts
Copper API
Published limits of 180 requests a minute and 3 a second for bulk endpoints, and a change policy with at least six months of support for deprecated APIs. No official MCP server or OpenAPI file, and API keys carry their owner's full rights with no scopes.
Relaticle
Relaticle is an actively released AGPL CRM whose REST API and MCP server have an OpenAPI spec, annotated tools, workspace-bound tokens with per-method permissions and a free self-hosted route. MCP writes apply at once with no server-side confirmation, OAuth grants the whole toolset, and Cloud has no status page, SLA or certification.
Before you call either
Copper API
- Send
X-PW-AccessToken,X-PW-Application: developer_apiandX-PW-UserEmailon every call, or it fails - Set
page_sizeto 200 and stop when a page comes back short, sinceX-PW-TOTALis only an upper bound - Back off on 429 on your own clock, since no Retry-After is documented
- Narrow searches that would pass 100,000 records, which is where results stop
- Read connect fields before you update a record, because an update that omits them can delete connections
Relaticle
- Use a personal access token with only the read permission unless the task writes, since OAuth grants every tool
- Ask the user before create, update, delete or send tools; the server applies them at once
- Call
get-crm-schema-toolfor an entity before filtering on custom fields, which differ by workspace - Use
POST /v1/people/upsertor/v1/companies/upsertwith a unique field to avoid duplicates on retry - Keep MCP calls under 120 a minute per user and REST writes under 60 a minute per token on Cloud Pro
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Copper API or Relaticle?
Relaticle scores 59.6 (C) on agent readiness against Copper API's 47.1 (D), and leads in 4 of 7 scored categories. Copper API leads on reliability and transparency & trust.
Do Copper API and Relaticle need an API key?
Both take an API key or an OAuth sign-in.
Can an agent call Copper API and Relaticle without installing anything?
Yes. Copper API has a hosted endpoint at https://api.copper.com/developer_api/v1 and Relaticle at https://mcp.relaticle.com.
Are Copper API and Relaticle open source?
No open-source release is listed for Copper API. Relaticle is open source (AGPL-3.0).
Other comparisons with Copper API or Relaticle
- Affinity vs Copper API
- Affinity vs Relaticle
- Attio API + MCP vs Copper API
- Attio API + MCP vs Relaticle
- Breakcold vs Copper API
- Breakcold vs Relaticle
- Capsule CRM vs Copper API
- Capsule CRM vs Relaticle
- Close API + MCP vs Copper API
- Close API + MCP vs Relaticle
- Copper API vs Microsoft Dynamics 365 Sales
- Copper API vs folk API + MCP
- Copper API vs Freshsales API
- Copper API vs HubSpot API + MCP
- Copper API vs Nutshell
- Copper API vs Payani AI
- Copper API vs Pipedrive API + MCP
- Copper API vs Salesflare
- Copper API vs Salesforce API + MCP
- Copper API vs Streak API + MCP
- Copper API vs SugarAI (SugarCRM)
- Copper API vs Twenty API + MCP
- Copper API vs Zoho CRM
- Microsoft Dynamics 365 Sales vs Relaticle
- folk API + MCP vs Relaticle
- Freshsales API vs Relaticle
- HubSpot API + MCP vs Relaticle
- Nutshell vs Relaticle
- Payani AI vs Relaticle
- Pipedrive API + MCP vs Relaticle
- Relaticle vs Salesflare
- Relaticle vs Salesforce API + MCP
- Relaticle vs Streak API + MCP
- Relaticle vs SugarAI (SugarCRM)
- Relaticle vs Twenty API + MCP
- Relaticle vs Zoho CRM
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/copper-vs-relaticle.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/copper.json·/api/v1/tools/relaticle.json - From a terminal
anchor compare copper relaticle(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "copper", "b": "relaticle"}at/mcp, no key