Not all agentic memory
is the same.

VEKTOR vs the field — architecture, ownership, and cost, laid out straight.

Pick the stack that fits your needs.

// live comparisons
Live
Cloud · Python · Usage-based

VEKTOR vs Mem0

The most popular cloud memory API vs local-first SQLite. Pricing model, Node.js support, MCP integration, and data ownership.

Read comparison →
Live
Cloud · Python · Graphiti engine

VEKTOR vs Zep

Graphiti's temporal reasoning vs MAGMA's 4-layer graph. Where Zep's validity windows win, and where local-first 8ms recall wins.

Read comparison →
Live
Cloud · Vector DB · Usage-based

VEKTOR vs Pinecone

Pure vector store vs associative memory graph. Why semantic similarity search alone isn't the same as agent memory.

Read comparison →
Live
Cloud · Python · MemGPT lineage

VEKTOR vs Letta

MemGPT's successor vs VEKTOR. Tiered in-context memory model vs persistent graph. Long-horizon task performance compared.

Read comparison →
Live
Cloud · MCP · Benchmark claims

VEKTOR vs Supermemory

Both MCP-native, both claim strong LongMemEval numbers. Architecture deep-dive and honest look at the benchmark methodology.

Read comparison →

Not all memory is the same — and the benchmarks prove it

Agentic memory is the infrastructure that lets an AI agent retain, retrieve, and reason over information across sessions, tasks, and model switches. It is not a context window. It is not a vector database. It is not a chat history buffer. It is a purpose-built layer that decides what to store, how to index it, and which parts to surface at the right moment — without blowing up your token budget or losing the information that matters.

The four memory types every production agent needs

Episodic
What happened, in what order. Session history, past decisions, conversation context. The most commonly implemented — and the easiest to get wrong at scale.
Semantic
Accumulated facts, entity relationships, domain knowledge. Requires graph structure for multi-hop reasoning — pure vector similarity search is not enough.
Procedural
How to do things. Learned workflows, code patterns, team conventions, past approaches that worked or failed. Rarely stored explicitly — usually the most valuable.
Working
Active state for the current task. Goals, constraints, current plan. High-priority, short-lived, must not compete with long-term memories during retrieval.

Why a vector database alone is not agent memory

A vector database stores and retrieves by semantic similarity. That solves one part of the problem. Production agents also need contradiction resolution (when new information conflicts with what is stored), temporal reasoning (the fact was true in March but not now), entity linking (understanding that "the auth module" and "auth.js" refer to the same thing), and knowledge graph traversal (answering questions that require combining two or more stored facts). VEKTOR's MAGMA graph handles all four. A bare vector store handles one.

Benchmarks — read the methodology, not just the headline

⚠ Benchmark caveat — read before quoting any number in this table.
Memory benchmarks measure different things and are often not directly comparable. Retrieval recall (R@k) measures whether the correct source session appears in the top-k retrieved results. QA accuracy measures whether the final generated answer is correct. A system can score 100% retrieval recall and 40% QA accuracy. They are not the same metric.

Many published scores are self-reported, run on different dataset splits, or use different judges. Independent reproductions frequently show gaps of 15–20 points versus self-reported figures. This table will become outdated. Scores move fast. Always verify against the linked methodology before citing. Last updated: June 2026.
System LongMemEval LoCoMo Metric Notes
VEKTOR Slipstream 79.0% 66.9% QA accuracy GPT-4o-mini judge, 105q, v1.7.2. Methodology open.
Mem0 (Apr 2026) 94.4% 92.5% QA accuracy Self-reported May 2026. Eval framework open-sourced. Pre-May independent reproduction: 73.8%.
MemPal (raw, no LLM) 96.6% Retrieval R@5 Different metric to QA accuracy. Not directly comparable.
Mastra 94.87% QA accuracy Self-reported, GPT-5-mini judge. Methodology not fully published.
GPT-4 (full context) ~67% QA accuracy Original LongMemEval paper baseline (ICLR 2025).
ReadAgent ~55% QA accuracy Original LongMemEval paper baseline (ICLR 2025).

† Self-reported. Not independently verified at the published score. Independent reproduction found a 19.6-point gap versus Mem0's published figure on the same evaluation.

‡ Retrieval recall (R@5) — not QA accuracy. Measures whether the correct session appears in the top 5 retrieved results. MemPal's own documentation explicitly states this is not comparable to QA accuracy metrics.

VEKTOR's 79.0% is end-to-end QA accuracy on LongMemEval_S (105 questions), judged by GPT-4o-mini, using v1.7.2 routed ingest. Full methodology →

// the short answer

VEKTOR wins on latency (8ms local vs 100–400ms cloud), pricing ($9/mo flat vs usage-based), MCP support (native server for Claude, Cursor, Windsurf), and data ownership (zero egress). Competitors win on Python-first SDKs, managed infrastructure, and in Zep's case, temporal fact reasoning. Pick based on your stack, not the marketing.

Get VEKTOR — $9/month →

Related
VEKTOR architecture & research → Vector memory for agentic systems: 2026 guide → RAG vs associative memory → VEKTOR FAQ → VEKTOR Slipstream SDK →