FilterLists vs SniffCat

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

Uptime · 30d
Uptime · 90d98.0%83.3%
Uptime · 30d96.7%83.3%
P50 · ms357290
P95 · ms1813598
AuthnoneapiKey
CORSnono
HTTPSyesyes
Card requirednono
Commercial useunclearyes
Data licenseUnverified
Free tierFree — no key required
Rate limitUnpublishedRetry-After: 24s
In directory since2026-07-052026-08-19
operationalpartialdownno data

FilterLists vs SniffCat: common questions

Which is more reliable, FilterLists or SniffCat?

On our scheduled checks, FilterLists leads on measured uptime — FilterLists at 98.0% versus SniffCat at 83.3% 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, FilterLists or SniffCat?

SniffCat has the lower median latency in our checks — FilterLists responds in 357 ms versus SniffCat at 290 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 FilterLists and SniffCat need an API key?

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

Can I call FilterLists and SniffCat from the browser?

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

Are FilterLists and SniffCat free for commercial use?

FilterLists has unclear commercial terms, and SniffCat allows commercial use on its free tier. 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.