API.market vs easi.run
API.market vs easi.run: score breakdown
API.market scores 68/100 against 62/100 for easi.run, a 6-point gap. API.market is ahead on Capability (18 vs 17), Ease of use (17 vs 13) and Delivery (15 vs 10); easi.run is ahead on Value (22 vs 18). Each sub-score is out of 25.
Features and platforms
| Feature | API.market | easi.run |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Freemium | Free |
| Free plan | Yes | Yes |
| Platforms | Web, API (REST), MCP gateway (Streamable HTTP) | Web (self-hosted Docker on Linux x86-64), MCP, REST API |
| Best for | AI agent builders and developers integrating multiple third-party APIs | Developers self-hosting AI agent infrastructure with strict data-control requirements. |
| Skip if | Teams needing predictable flat-rate billing or a single-vendor SLA | Teams that need a managed, SLA-backed browser service with no server ops overhead. |
Cost and usage limits
API.market has a free plan. easi.run has a free plan.
Prices from each vendor's pricing page. API.market checked September 2026 · easi.run checked November 2026
Pros and cons
API.market
- Hosted MCP gateway exposes 3,650+ tools through a single endpoint, removing per-provider integration work for AI agent builders.
- Free trial units are available on most APIs without a credit card, with some APIs offering as many as 5,000 free units to start.
- 590+ APIs across diverse categories in one dashboard means developers can discover, compare, and switch providers without leaving the platform.
- Per-API billing from independent sellers makes total cost unpredictable: a project using five APIs means five separate pricing models to track, and there is no consolidated spend cap or budget alert at the platform level.
- The MCP gateway is proprietary and hosted with no self-hosted option, so teams with data-residency or audit requirements cannot inspect or control the gateway layer.
- Seller quality is uneven: ratings on the marketplace range from 0.0 to 5.0 with as few as one or two reviews on many APIs, giving buyers little signal on reliability before committing.
easi.run
- Completely free with no usage fees from the tool itself; the only costs are your own server and model-provider API charges.
- Human takeover mode lets a developer drop into a live agent session to handle CAPTCHAs, logins, or approval steps without restarting the workflow.
- Dual connection options (MCP and REST API) mean it integrates with many agent frameworks without requiring a specific SDK.
- Requires a Linux x86-64 server with Docker; there is no Windows or macOS host support and no managed cloud fallback, so you are the ops team from day one.
- AGPL-3.0-only licensing means any commercial product or SaaS built on top of easi.run must also be open-sourced under the same terms, which blocks most proprietary commercial use cases.
- No built-in anti-bot evasion, proxy rotation, or CAPTCHA-solving service; the human takeover handles CAPTCHAs manually, but automated CAPTCHA resolution requires external tooling.
Our verdict
API.market verdict
API.market is the right starting point for developers or AI agent builders who want to browse, trial, and integrate many third-party APIs without juggling separate accounts for each provider. Its hosted MCP gateway is a genuine differentiator for agent workflows, but the per-API pricing model means your actual monthly cost is nearly impossible to predict before you start building. Developers who need a single, well-documented API with predictable flat-rate pricing should go directly to that API's provider instead.
Read full API.market review →easi.run verdict
easi.run is the right pick for developers who need a self-hosted, zero-subscription browser layer for AI agents and want human takeover for logins and CAPTCHAs without paying per session. The tradeoff is real: you own the ops burden entirely, from provisioning a Linux x86-64 server to managing Docker, and there is no managed cloud fallback if your infra goes down. Teams that want a hosted service with SLA guarantees should look at a managed alternative instead.
Read full easi.run review →