LCBO vs WhiskyHunter
Same instrument, two spec sheets — measured, not claimed.
LCBO vs WhiskyHunter: common questions
Which is more reliable, LCBO or WhiskyHunter?
On our scheduled checks, LCBO leads on measured uptime — LCBO at 100% versus WhiskyHunter at 97.1% 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, LCBO or WhiskyHunter?
LCBO has the lower median latency in our checks — LCBO responds in 207 ms versus WhiskyHunter at 885 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 LCBO and WhiskyHunter need an API key?
Neither needs a paid key — LCBO is callable with no signup, and WhiskyHunter is callable with no signup. Both are quick to prototype with; rate limits still apply.
Can I call LCBO and WhiskyHunter from the browser?
Neither sends browser-friendly CORS headers reliably, so call LCBO and WhiskyHunter from a server or proxy rather than client-side. The CORS and HTTPS rows above show exactly what we detected for each.
Are LCBO and WhiskyHunter free for commercial use?
LCBO has unclear commercial terms, and WhiskyHunter 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.