Icanhazip vs PurgoMalum

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

Uptime · 30d
Uptime · 90d26.5%86.3%
Uptime · 30d0.0%85.0%
P50 · ms328423
P95 · ms9594833
Authnonenone
CORSyesyes
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 PurgoMalum: common questions

Which is more reliable, Icanhazip or PurgoMalum?

On our scheduled checks, PurgoMalum leads on measured uptime — Icanhazip at 26.5% versus PurgoMalum at 86.3% 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 PurgoMalum?

Icanhazip has the lower median latency in our checks — Icanhazip responds in 328 ms versus PurgoMalum at 423 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 PurgoMalum need an API key?

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

Can I call Icanhazip and PurgoMalum from the browser?

Yes — both Icanhazip and PurgoMalum 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 PurgoMalum free for commercial use?

Icanhazip has unclear commercial terms, and PurgoMalum 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.