Grass Touch API vs Himalayas
Same instrument, two spec sheets — measured, not claimed.
Grass Touch API vs Himalayas: common questions
Which is more reliable, Grass Touch API or Himalayas?
On our scheduled checks, Himalayas leads on measured uptime — Grass Touch API at 2.9% versus Himalayas at 99.02% 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, Grass Touch API or Himalayas?
Himalayas has the lower median latency in our checks — Grass Touch API responds in 1701 ms versus Himalayas at 263 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 Grass Touch API and Himalayas need an API key?
Neither needs a paid key — Grass Touch API is callable with no signup, and Himalayas is callable with no signup. Both are quick to prototype with; rate limits still apply.
Can I call Grass Touch API and Himalayas from the browser?
Neither sends browser-friendly CORS headers reliably, so call Grass Touch API and Himalayas from a server or proxy rather than client-side. The CORS and HTTPS rows above show exactly what we detected for each.
Are Grass Touch API and Himalayas free for commercial use?
Grass Touch API has unclear commercial terms, and Himalayas 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.