Arcade.dev Alternatives: 6 Enterprise AI Gateways Compared
Arcade.dev is specialized in agent authorization, so the alternatives split by what you need instead. Metorial for getting AI past engineering with self-hosting and Skills, Runlayer for externally audited inspection, Barndoor for cost, MintMCP for speed of rollout, Composio for breadth of connectors, and self-hosting when the scope is one or two integrations.
Arcade.dev is narrow on purpose. It answers one question well: can this agent exceed the permissions of the person it is acting for? If that is your entire requirement, the alternatives below will mostly look like more product than you need. If it is one requirement among several, the gap shows quickly.
What does Arcade actually cover?
Per-user authorization on the call path, with each attempt logged whether it succeeds or is denied. It raised $60M in a Series A, on $72M total, which is a reasonable signal that the authorization framing found buyers.
What it does not attempt: cost optimization, discovery of unapproved servers already in use, and any surface for people who do not write code. Those are not gaps in execution, they are scope decisions.
The alternatives
Metorial: getting AI past engineering
Best forCompanies where the constraint is adoption outside the engineering team.
Metorial covers the authorization requirement through SSO-bound access control and per-user OAuth, then adds the layers Arcade leaves out. Agent Skills let a support lead package a procedure and share it with their team without a repository. Magic MCP gives one endpoint that works the same across Claude, Cursor, Codex, and Copilot. Protoguard checks calls for prompt injection, Tracing records sessions, and the platform is open core with on-prem deployment.
Where it falls short. For a security-only rollout that never leaves engineering, Arcade goes deeper on the authorization model itself, and Metorial's breadth is overhead you will not use. Detail in Metorial vs Arcade.dev.
Runlayer: externally verified inspection
Best forReviews that require validation from someone other than the vendor.
Runlayer inspects calls in both directions and produces tamper-evident logs, backed by AARM Extended Conformance R1 through R9 and MCP's lead creator on its advisory board. $41M raised.
Where it falls short. Like Arcade, it is a security product rather than an adoption one. See Metorial vs Runlayer.
Barndoor: cost control
Best forTeams where the AI bill, not the permission model, is the problem.
The ToolIQ router avoids re-sending every tool description on every request, which Barndoor reports cuts token use and processing cost per query by up to 95%. $13.6M raised.
Where it falls short. No Skills layer, no non-engineering surface, and less authorization depth than Arcade.
MintMCP: speed of rollout
Best forBringing a department online quickly with role-scoped access.
Role-specific endpoint URLs carrying only the tools that role should reach, which makes the first governed deployment fast.
Where it falls short. Shallower inspection than Runlayer or Arcade, and no shared procedure layer.
Composio: breadth of connectors
Best forPrototypes that need many integrations working today.
Strong managed authentication and a broad catalog, with a usage-based free tier that suits experimentation.
Where it falls short. Cloud only, basic per-user isolation, and limited observability. Those are the reasons teams leave, covered in Composio alternatives.
Self-hosting
Best forOne or two integrations owned by engineers with no compliance requirement.
Full control, no license cost, and mcp-containers removes most of the packaging work.
Where it falls short. You build the authorization model Arcade sells, plus token refresh, isolation, and an audit log. Reasonable for two integrations, not for twenty.
Who should pick what?
- Stay with Arcade.dev if authorization is the requirement and the users are engineers.
- Metorial if AI has to reach people outside engineering, or you need on-prem.
- Runlayer if an external auditor's sign-off is what unblocks the project.
- Barndoor if spend is the binding constraint.
- MintMCP if you need a governed rollout in days.
- Composio if you are still prototyping and want breadth.
- Self-hosting if the scope is genuinely small.
Frequently asked questions
What does Arcade.dev do well?
Agent authorization. Every tool call is narrowed to the permissions of the user the agent acts for, and the attempt is recorded whether or not it succeeds. If your requirement is proving an agent cannot exceed its user, it is one of the strongest implementations available.
Why would a team look for an Arcade.dev alternative?
Usually because their problem is not only authorization. Teams that need non-engineers to use AI, want to reduce token spend, or need a shared procedure layer find Arcade deliberately narrow, since it does not attempt those.
Which alternative matches Arcade on security?
Runlayer is closest on inspection depth and has gone further on external validation with AARM Extended Conformance. Metorial covers SOC 2 Type II, GDPR, and on-prem with per-user identity, which passes most reviews without being as specialized.
Is Arcade.dev open source?
Arcade offers a tool SDK and a self-hostable engine, but it is not open core in the way Metorial is. If reading and modifying the platform itself matters to you, check the license terms against your requirements before committing.
Can I run more than one of these at once?
Technically yes, and some teams do run a cost router in front of a gateway. It doubles the operational surface and splits the audit trail across two systems, so it is worth confirming that one product cannot cover both needs first.