AutoChangelog vs SiteIntel

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

Uptime · 30d
Uptime · 90d100%100%
Uptime · 30d100%100%
P50 · ms5781005
P95 · ms17293849
AuthapiKeyapiKey
CORSnono
HTTPSyesyes
Card requirednono
Commercial useunclearunclear
Data licenseUnverifiedUnverified
Free tierFree tier — API key requiredFree tier — key may be required
Rate limitUnpublishedUnpublished
In directory since2026-07-052026-07-05
operationalpartialdownno data

AutoChangelog vs SiteIntel: common questions

Which is more reliable, AutoChangelog or SiteIntel?

Both are neck-and-neck — AutoChangelog and SiteIntel each measure 100% uptime over 90 days on our probe schedule. Reliability here is verified from our own scheduled checks; use the 30-day bars above to see which has been steadier lately.

Which is faster, AutoChangelog or SiteIntel?

AutoChangelog has the lower median latency in our checks — AutoChangelog responds in 578 ms versus SiteIntel at 1005 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 AutoChangelog and SiteIntel need an API key?

Both ask you to authenticate — AutoChangelog uses an API key and SiteIntel 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 AutoChangelog and SiteIntel from the browser?

Neither sends browser-friendly CORS headers reliably, so call AutoChangelog and SiteIntel from a server or proxy rather than client-side. The CORS and HTTPS rows above show exactly what we detected for each.

Are AutoChangelog and SiteIntel free for commercial use?

AutoChangelog has unclear commercial terms, and SiteIntel 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.