Icanhazip vs No-as-a-Service
Same instrument, two spec sheets — measured, not claimed.
Icanhazip vs No-as-a-Service: common questions
Which is more reliable, Icanhazip or No-as-a-Service?
On our scheduled checks, No-as-a-Service leads on measured uptime — Icanhazip at 26.5% versus No-as-a-Service at 98.0% 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 No-as-a-Service?
Icanhazip has the lower median latency in our checks — Icanhazip responds in 328 ms versus No-as-a-Service at 547 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 No-as-a-Service need an API key?
Neither needs a paid key — Icanhazip is callable with no signup, and No-as-a-Service is callable with no signup. Both are quick to prototype with; rate limits still apply.
Can I call Icanhazip and No-as-a-Service from the browser?
Yes — both Icanhazip and No-as-a-Service send CORS headers over HTTPS, so front-end code can fetch either directly with no backend proxy. That makes them easy to swap in a client-side app while you compare responses.
Are Icanhazip and No-as-a-Service free for commercial use?
Icanhazip has unclear commercial terms, and No-as-a-Service 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.