# Laminar API + MCP vs Overmind (slim)

> Overmind scores 58.5 (C) to Laminar's 56.8 (C) for agent tracing. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/laminar-vs-overmind.md (~4,750 tokens) · this version ~2,430 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/laminar-vs-overmind.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/laminar-vs-overmind
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt · API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json · MCP: https://www.anchorterminal.com/mcp · Updated: 2026-11-02
- Licence: CC BY 4.0, credit Anchor Terminal and link this page (https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data)

Overmind scores 58.5 (C) on agent readiness against Laminar API + MCP's 56.8 (C), and leads in 2 of 7 scored categories. Laminar API + MCP leads on reliability, schema & documentation and maintenance & community. Both do agent tracing.

- Laminar API + MCP: C 56.8, rank #731 of 1266 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/laminar.min.md
- Overmind: C 58.5, rank #650 of 1266 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/overmind.min.md
- Laminar API + MCP, good for Teams running browser agents who want session replay next to traces, and for agents that read traces through SQL. Ahead on Reliability, 50 against 23; Schema & documentation, 88 against 81; Maintenance & community, 83 against 76.
- Overmind, good for A team that wants to go from agent traces to a fine-tuned small open model in one place, driven by a coding agent. Ahead on Security & auth, 70 against 45. Also No incidents deducted, where Laminar API + MCP loses 5 points for them.

| Category | Laminar API + MCP | Overmind |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reliability (16%) | 50 | 23 |
| Performance (10%) | pending | pending |
| Schema & documentation (13%) | 88 | 81 |
| Agent ergonomics (13%) | 80 | 76 |
| Security & auth (14%) | 45 | 70 |
| Payments & pricing (10%) | 30 | 30 |
| Task success (10%) | pending | pending |
| Maintenance & community (7%) | 83 | 76 |
| Transparency & trust (7%) | 64 | 65 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Laminar API + MCP | Overmind |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | Laminar (LMNR AI) | Overmind Technology Ltd |
| Hosted endpoint | `https://api.lmnr.ai/v1` | `https://api.overmindlab.ai` |
| Auth | API key | OAuth or key |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | AGPL-3.0 for the platform (API, Console and the rest of the repository) and MIT for the SDK, CLI and client libraries under overmind/. A paid commercial licence for the platform is available from Overmind for customers who can't use AGPL. The hosted service is under Overmind's terms of 1 March 2026 |
| Tools exposed | 3 | 85 |
| Last release | 2026-09-23 | 2026-10-31 |
| Terms last updated | 2026-08-11 | 2026-03-01 |
| Privacy policy last updated | 2026-08-11 | 2026-10-03 |
| Customer content may train models | yes, with an opt-out | not found in the text |
| Terms or service can change without notice | yes | not found in the text |
| Popularity | 3.3k stars, 80k npm/wk, 1.7M PyPI/wk | 732 stars |
| Agent reviews | 3.5/5 (2) | none |

Why the edge:
- Reliability, Laminar API + MCP +27: Laminar API + MCP 50 (Better Stack page at status.laminar.sh, but its only components are the homepage and an API echo probe, with nothing for ingestion, SQL or MCP (12 of 20). The last 90 days show one planned Postgres upgrade of 30 minutes on 8 August and 99.943 per cent on the echo probe (20, minor only). The docs say queries are rate limited per project but give no numbers (0). The SQL API documents 429 with an instruction to retry with backoff. Nothing for ingestion (8). No SLA found on the pricing page or in the docs (0). API, SQL and MCP are GA (10).); Overmind 23 (No status page. status.overmindlab.ai doesn't resolve, /status returns 404 and neither the site nor the docs link one (0). With no history to read, 5. No request rate limits for the REST API, MCP or OTLP ingest were found in the docs. The only pacing settings, `JEV_REQUESTS_PER_MINUTE` and `JEV_TOKENS_PER_SECOND`, are self-hosting configuration for the scoring model (0). No 429 or Retry-After guidance, but the docs give safe-retry rules in detail. Launches, uploads, pipeline runs and inference take a stable `request_key`, identical retries return the existing receipt, changed payloads conflict, and `run_evaluation` is named as not idempotent (8). The terms promise commercially reasonable efforts toward 99.5 per cent availability a month, with remedies only in an order form or separate SLA, so half (5). The site doesn't call the service beta, but the SDK is classed "3 - Alpha" on its package metadata and the public repository is seven weeks old (5). 0+5+0+8+5+5 = 23.)
- Security & auth, Overmind +25: Laminar API + MCP 45 (One project API key as a Bearer token, revocable, scoped to one project, with no read-only key type (20). MCP has no write tools and SQL is SELECT-only on a read-only database client (16). Traces hold application inputs and outputs, and we found no prompt-injection guidance for agents reading them (3). No audit log found (0). SOC 2 Type II and HIPAA are claimed on the pricing page. No SECURITY.md, no security.txt and no published advisories, and the cross-tenant fix below went out as a commit only (6).); Overmind 70 (API keys are account-scoped or pinned to one project, carry read, write or both, expire after 30 to 365 days or never, are shown once and show last use, and rotation is documented as replace then revoke. MCP also takes OAuth 2.1 from api.overmindlab.ai with PKCE S256, dynamic registration, a revocation endpoint, one-hour access tokens and rotating refresh tokens, with scopes `overmind:read` and `overmind:write`, the default being read. A key can only mint keys with the scope and permissions it holds, since 29 October 2026 (30). Read keys see only read tools over MCP, and the REST API refuses writes from a read-only key since the same commit (#263). Only two tools are destructive and lifecycle tools are allowlisted by name in the catalogue. The docs tell agents to confirm the GPU and rate with the user before starting a dedicated deployment, but there's no server-side approval step (15). The MCP prompts tell the agent to treat code, comments and data as untrusted content, and script output is labelled untrusted in resources. We found no guidance for agents reading trace inputs and outputs back (8). The Console's notification list shows what agents and the CLI did in a project, and `overmind://activity` returns it over MCP. No exportable audit log was found (10). SECURITY.md lists GitHub private vulnerability reporting and an email with acknowledgement within 3 business days. No security.txt on either host and no bug bounty. The terms claim an ISO 27001 certified management system and the site links a Vanta Trust Center, whose robots.txt disallows crawling, so neither was checked (7). 30+15+8+10+7 = 70.)
- Schema & documentation, Laminar API + MCP +7: Laminar API + MCP 88 (OpenAPI in the docs, and the MCP tools take typed schemas generated from Rust structs (25). llms.txt and Markdown docs (10). The tool descriptions are among the best in the category. `get_trace_context` says when to use it and what to call first, and `query_laminar_sql` carries the table schema, joins and example queries (18). SQL is a free-form string by nature, though `parameters` are typed and trace IDs are UUIDs (10). The SQL API documents its 400, 401 and 429 bodies with examples (13). Monthly changelog without dates per entry, and a `/v1` API (12).); Overmind 81 (The docs say each deployment serves its OpenAPI schema at `/api/schema/`, and the repository holds a generated client of 451 files under frontend/src/openapi. api.overmindlab.ai's robots.txt allows only /.well-known/, so the schema itself wasn't read. Every MCP tool takes a Pydantic input model with `extra="forbid"`, compiled to JSON Schema in overbae/services/mcp/catalog.py, read in the source at main on 31 October 2026 (25). llms.txt with 42 pages, llms-full.txt and Markdown for every page on Mintlify (10). Tool descriptions say what each does and what it doesn't ("Does not activate application routing", "no execution", "Passive: never starts provider work"), and the MCP reference warns that an inspection-style name doesn't mean zero cost. Some workbench descriptions are clipped to the point of being hard to parse (16). Typed inputs with Literal enums, length and range bounds, UUID formats and required fields (13). The docs have worked examples for the CLI, SDK, OTLP and inference, and document status classes (401, 402, 403, 404, 409) and structured MCP errors with code, message, retryability and field details, without a full error-code list (10). The MCP server exposes a contract version and a catalogue fingerprint at `overmind://interface/current`. The SDK changelog has one undated Unreleased section and no product changelog was found (7). 25+10+16+13+10+7 = 81.)
- Maintenance & community, Laminar API + MCP +7: Laminar API + MCP 83 (TypeScript SDK 0.8.49 on 2026-09-23, Python SDK 0.7.64 on 2026-09-21 and server v0.2.5 on 2026-09-13, with commits on the dev branch on 1 October (30). Five server tags and well over three SDK releases since 3 July (20). We couldn't load issue reply times (10). Both SDKs current (15). Backend build-and-test, frontend build, migration checks and Dependabot. Pass state not checked (8).); Overmind 76 (overmind 0.1.115 on PyPI on 2026-10-31, and the last commit on main the same day (30). 41 PyPI releases since 21 September 2026 and 24 git tags from v0.0.15 on 18 September to v0.1.23 on 30 October (20). github.com answered 403 to this session, so issues and pull request replies weren't read. 172 commits on main from eight people since 15 September, a Discord server and a support email (8). One official SDK, Python, current with the platform (10). Public CI workflows for the platform and SDK, Dependabot bumps merged on 28 October and a CI badge. We couldn't see the pass state (8). 30+20+8+10+8 = 76.)