shipapis
StarSubmit an APISubmit API

APIClaw vs Hunter

Same instrument, two spec sheets — measured, not claimed.

APIAPIClawREACHABLE100HunterHEALTHY96
Uptime · 30d
Uptime · 90d100%99.44%
Uptime · 30d100%98.3%
P50 · ms661246
P95 · ms700959
AuthapiKeyapiKey
CORSyesno
HTTPSyesyes
Card requirednono
Commercial useunclearunclear
Data licenseUnverified
Free tierFree tier — key may be required
Rate limitUnpublished
In directory since2026-10-302026-07-05
operationalpartialdownno data

APIClaw vs Hunter: common questions

Which is more reliable, APIClaw or Hunter?

On our scheduled checks, APIClaw leads on measured uptime — APIClaw at 100% versus Hunter at 99.44% over 90 days. These are our own probe results, not provider claims; the uptime bars above show the day-by-day record for both.

Which is faster, APIClaw or Hunter?

Hunter has the lower median latency in our checks — APIClaw responds in 661 ms versus Hunter at 246 ms (P50). Tail latency (P95) is in the table above; for most workloads the median is the number that shapes how the API feels.

Do APIClaw and Hunter need an API key?

Both ask you to authenticate — APIClaw uses an API key and Hunter uses an API key. Each key is free to obtain; the Auth and Card-required rows above spell out the signup terms.

Can I call APIClaw and Hunter from the browser?

Only APIClaw is browser-friendly — it returns CORS headers over HTTPS. Hunter needs a server-side call or proxy, so factor that into which one fits a front-end project.

Are APIClaw and Hunter free for commercial use?

APIClaw has unclear commercial terms, and Hunter has unclear commercial terms. We track service terms and the data license as separate fields — see the Commercial use and Data license rows above, and confirm both before shipping either in a paid product.