AQICN vs wttr.in

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

Uptime · 30d
Uptime · 90d100%95.1%
Uptime · 30d100%98.3%
P50 · ms224700
P95 · ms6654900
AuthapiKeynone
CORSyesyes
HTTPSnoyes
Card requirednono
Commercial useunclearunclear
Data licenseUnverifiedUnverified
Free tierFree tier — API key requiredFree — limits not published
Rate limitUnpublishedUnpublished (informal per-IP throttling)
In directory since2026-07-052026-07-05
operationalpartialdownno data

AQICN vs wttr.in: common questions

Which is more reliable, AQICN or wttr.in?

On our scheduled checks, AQICN leads on measured uptime — AQICN at 100% versus wttr.in at 95.1% 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, AQICN or wttr.in?

AQICN has the lower median latency in our checks — AQICN responds in 224 ms versus wttr.in at 700 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 AQICN and wttr.in need an API key?

wttr.in needs no key, while AQICN requires a free API key. If you want to start calling without signup, reach for wttr.in first.

Can I call AQICN and wttr.in from the browser?

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

Are AQICN and wttr.in free for commercial use?

AQICN has unclear commercial terms, and wttr.in 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.