Icanhazip vs IFTTT

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

Uptime · 30d
Uptime · 90d26.5%100%
Uptime · 30d0.0%100%
P50 · ms328682
P95 · ms9591262
Authnonenone
CORSyesno
HTTPSyesyes
Card requirednono
Commercial useunclearunclear
Data licenseUnverifiedUnverified
Free tierFree — limits not publishedFree — limits not published
Rate limitUnpublishedUnpublished
In directory since2026-07-052026-07-05
operationalpartialdownno data

Icanhazip vs IFTTT: common questions

Which is more reliable, Icanhazip or IFTTT?

On our scheduled checks, IFTTT leads on measured uptime — Icanhazip at 26.5% versus IFTTT at 100% 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, Icanhazip or IFTTT?

Icanhazip has the lower median latency in our checks — Icanhazip responds in 328 ms versus IFTTT at 682 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 Icanhazip and IFTTT need an API key?

Neither needs a paid key — Icanhazip is callable with no signup, and IFTTT is callable with no signup. Both are quick to prototype with; rate limits still apply.

Can I call Icanhazip and IFTTT from the browser?

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

Are Icanhazip and IFTTT free for commercial use?

Icanhazip has unclear commercial terms, and IFTTT 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.