shipapis
StarSubmit an APISubmit API

Hunter vs Icanhazip

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

APIHunterHEALTHY96IcanhazipDEAD0
Uptime · 30d
Uptime · 90d100%26.5%
Uptime · 30d100%0.0%
P50 · ms362328
P95 · ms859959
AuthapiKeynone
CORSnoyes
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

Hunter vs Icanhazip: common questions

Which is more reliable, Hunter or Icanhazip?

On our scheduled checks, Hunter leads on measured uptime — Hunter at 100% 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, Hunter or Icanhazip?

Icanhazip has the lower median latency in our checks — Hunter responds in 362 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 Hunter and Icanhazip need an API key?

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

Can I call Hunter and Icanhazip from the browser?

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

Are Hunter and Icanhazip free for commercial use?

Hunter 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.