Audexum vs Icanhazip

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

Uptime · 30d
Uptime · 90d97.1%26.5%
Uptime · 30d95.0%0.0%
P50 · ms417328
P95 · ms1103959
AuthapiKeynone
CORSyesyes
HTTPSyesyes
Card requirednono
Commercial useunclearunclear
Data licenseUnverifiedUnverified
Free tierFree tier — key may be requiredFree — limits not published
Rate limitUnpublishedUnpublished
In directory since2026-07-052026-07-05
operationalpartialdownno data

Audexum vs Icanhazip: common questions

Which is more reliable, Audexum or Icanhazip?

On our scheduled checks, Audexum leads on measured uptime — Audexum at 97.1% versus Icanhazip at 26.5% 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, Audexum or Icanhazip?

Icanhazip has the lower median latency in our checks — Audexum responds in 417 ms versus Icanhazip at 328 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 Audexum and Icanhazip need an API key?

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

Can I call Audexum and Icanhazip from the browser?

Yes — both Audexum and Icanhazip send CORS headers over HTTPS, so front-end code can fetch either directly with no backend proxy. That makes them easy to swap in a client-side app while you compare responses.

Are Audexum and Icanhazip free for commercial use?

Audexum has unclear commercial terms, and Icanhazip 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.