shipapis
StarSubmit an APISubmit API

Hunter vs Numverify

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

APIHunterHEALTHY96NumverifyHEALTHY93
Uptime · 30d
Uptime · 90d100%100%
Uptime · 30d100%100%
P50 · ms362449
P95 · ms8591488
AuthapiKeyapiKey
CORSnono
HTTPSyesyes
Card requirednono
Commercial useunclearunclear
Data licenseUnverifiedUnverified
Free tierFree tier — key may be requiredFree tier — key may be required
Rate limitUnpublishedUnpublished
In directory since2026-07-052026-07-05
operationalpartialdownno data

Hunter vs Numverify: common questions

Which is more reliable, Hunter or Numverify?

Both are neck-and-neck — Hunter and Numverify 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, Hunter or Numverify?

Hunter has the lower median latency in our checks — Hunter responds in 362 ms versus Numverify at 449 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 Numverify need an API key?

Both ask you to authenticate — Hunter uses an API key and Numverify 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 Hunter and Numverify from the browser?

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

Are Hunter and Numverify free for commercial use?

Hunter has unclear commercial terms, and Numverify 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.