Sickle vs Cogni
A side-by-side comparison built from both listings. Blank cells mean the company has not given that detail; we never guess.
Sickle compared with Cogni
| Detail | 
Sickle | C
Cogni |
|---|
| What it does | Email MCP server for Claude, Cursor and other AI agents to access every mailbox you own
| Memory that reasons
|
|---|
| Stage | Not given
| Not given
|
|---|
| Founded | Not given
| Not given
|
|---|
| Based in | GB
| US
|
|---|
| Pricing model | Free trial
| Freemium
|
|---|
| Pricing | Monthly: €8.99/month after 7-day free trial. Yearly: €30/year (€2.50/month equivalent, 72% savings). Includes both the Mac app and the MCP connector.
| Free plan at $0 USD; Pro plan at $5 USD per month.
|
|---|
| Key features | - Search across multiple mailboxes simultaneously
- Read full email threads with conversation history
- Move, archive and mark emails as read
- Scoped permissions: read, change, and send separately
- Attach files up to 18 MB to drafts and emails
- Download and open email attachments
- Native macOS mail client included
- Support for multiple email providers
- Encrypted file handling during transfer
- Revoke access anytime within the hour
| - Entity-graph spreading activation for cross-vocabulary retrieval
- Works with any LLM model
- No LLM or GPU in retrieval path
- Point-in-time and windowed recall
- Timestamped memories
- Fixed recall cost as memory grows
|
|---|
| What makes it different | - Works with any MCP client, not locked to one AI platform
- No installation required; works on macOS, Windows and Linux
- Access unlimited email accounts simultaneously in one connection
- Send emails with opt-in permission and approval workflow
| - Reaches answers across unrelated documents that share no keywords, where vector search scores zero
- Deterministic retrieval with no model in the path, so results never vary between queries
- Constant per-query cost regardless of memory size, even at 32,000 words
- No infrastructure to run—no vector database, cluster, or GPU needed
- Works with any model, so small local models gain the most from better retrieval
|
|---|
| Free plan | Not given
| Not given
|
|---|
| Open source | Not given
| Not given
|
|---|
| Platforms | Not given
| Not given
|
|---|
| Public API | Not given
| Not given
|
|---|
| Community votes | 0 | 0 |
|---|
| DR (Domain Rating by Ahrefs) | 13 ▲ +1 (up) since last check | 4 ● no change since last check |
|---|
| Trust Flow (Majestic) | 8 | 2 |
|---|
| Citation Flow (Majestic) | 22 | 21 |
|---|
| Referring domains (Majestic) | 17 | 34 |
|---|
6 details filled in for both companies.
More alternatives to Sickle More alternatives to Cogni