# Apiroc Unified Calendar API vs Reclaim.ai (slim)

> Apiroc Unified Calendar scores 41.2 (E) to Reclaim.ai's 37.9 (F) for calendar access. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/apiroc-vs-reclaim-ai.md (~4,300 tokens) · this version ~2,330 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/apiroc-vs-reclaim-ai.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/apiroc-vs-reclaim-ai
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt · API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json · MCP: https://www.anchorterminal.com/mcp · Updated: 2026-11-07
- Licence: CC BY 4.0, credit Anchor Terminal and link this page (https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data)

Apiroc Unified Calendar API scores 41.2 (E) on agent readiness against Reclaim.ai's 37.9 (F), and leads in 4 of 7 scored categories. Reclaim.ai leads on reliability, security & auth and transparency & trust. Both do calendar access.

- Apiroc Unified Calendar API: E 41.2, rank #1287 of 1486 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/apiroc.min.md
- Reclaim.ai: F 37.9, rank #1349 of 1486 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/reclaim-ai.min.md
- Apiroc Unified Calendar API, good for A small product or an agent builder that needs read and write across Google, Microsoft and iCloud for tens to hundreds of accounts on a tight budget. Ahead on Schema & documentation, 44 against 28; Agent ergonomics, 52 against 30; Payments & pricing, 40 against 25; Maintenance & community, 62 against 25. Also Free to start without a card.
- Reclaim.ai, good for Individuals and teams who already run their calendar through Reclaim and want an assistant to plan their week with approval. Ahead on Reliability, 45 against 35; Security & auth, 53 against 21; Transparency & trust, 56 against 51.

| Category | Apiroc Unified Calendar API | Reclaim.ai |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reliability (16%) | 35 | 45 |
| Performance (10%) | pending | pending |
| Schema & documentation (13%) | 44 | 28 |
| Agent ergonomics (13%) | 52 | 30 |
| Security & auth (14%) | 21 | 53 |
| Payments & pricing (10%) | 40 | 25 |
| Task success (10%) | pending | pending |
| Maintenance & community (7%) | 62 | 25 |
| Transparency & trust (7%) | 51 | 56 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Apiroc Unified Calendar API | Reclaim.ai |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Kind | HTTP API | MCP server |
| Vendor | Apiroc | Reclaim.ai Inc. |
| Hosted endpoint | `https://api.apiroc.com/api/v1` | `https://mcp.reclaim.ai` |
| Transports | HTTP | Streamable HTTP |
| Auth | OAuth or key | OAuth |
| Licence | MIT (Node SDK) | none |
| Read-only variant documented | yes | no |
| Last release | 2026-08-05 | none |
| Terms last updated | 2026-08-24 | 2024-04-08 |
| Privacy policy last updated | 2026-08-24 | 2025-06-25 |
| Terms restrict benchmarking | yes | not found in the text |
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | not found in the text | yes |
| Popularity | 26 npm/wk | none |
| Agent reviews | 2/5 (2) | none |

Why the edge:
- Maintenance & community, Apiroc Unified Calendar API +37: Apiroc Unified Calendar API 62 (Node SDK v2.0.1 on 5 August 2026, 57 days before this check (20). Four SDK releases since 3 July (v1.2.2, v1.3.0, v2.0.0, v2.0.1) (20). No public changelog. Support by email, with priority support on Pro and a Slack channel on Enterprise (4). One current official SDK, in Node (10). CI typechecks, lints, builds and tests on pull requests, and dependencies were bumped in May 2026 (8).); Reclaim.ai 25 (No changelog or release notes found, so the last MCP change can't be dated; the MCP overview was updated "over 3 weeks ago" and the Cursor guide is recent (20, from the article date). No dated release entries (0). Support by email and in-app chat, with no public changelog or tracker (5 of 15). Not in the official MCP registry, which lists only community Reclaim servers, and no official SDK (0). No package to check (0). 20 + 0 + 5 + 0 + 0 = 25.)
- Security & auth, Reclaim.ai +32: Apiroc Unified Calendar API 21 (Your application calls with one `x-api-key` that reaches every connected end-user account, and we found no key scopes or rotation docs (10). Per-provider scope selection in the dashboard lets an operator request read-only Google or Microsoft scopes, and production requires your own OAuth app. iCloud connects with an app-specific password, which can't be scoped, and nothing asks for confirmation on deletes (8). Event titles and descriptions from third parties reach the caller with no injection guidance (0). Every response carries a `requestId` and the privacy policy keeps application logs 30 days, but we found no operator-facing request log (3). No security.txt (per the 30 September check), no disclosure policy, bounty, SOC 2 or ISO 27001 found (0).); Reclaim.ai 53 (OAuth sign-in for MCP clients, with no scopes published; tokens stay out of URLs (20 of 30). Calendar writes are staged in Preview Mode and apply only after the user approves them in Reclaim, and the docs recommend per-tool approval in the client (18 of 20). Event titles, descriptions and invitee text reach the model, and no prompt-injection guidance was found (0). Preview Mode shows proposed changes, and no audit log of agent actions was found (3 of 15). The security page claims SOC 2, GDPR, CCPA and Data Privacy Framework certification and a subprocessor list is public; security.txt redirected in a loop and no disclosure policy was found (12 of 20). 20 + 18 + 0 + 3 + 12 = 53.)
- Agent ergonomics, Apiroc Unified Calendar API +22: Apiroc Unified Calendar API 52 (Lists take `limit` and `pageToken`, and event reads return a `syncToken` for incremental sync (15). Pagination and sync tokens, with free/busy as a separate endpoint (15). Machine-readable `error` names with a `requestId`, but no published list an agent can map to recovery steps (10). No idempotency keys. Events accept a client-supplied `id`, which could make creates safe to retry, though the docs don't say so (5). Node is the only SDK. Python, PHP and Java are listed as on the way (7).); Reclaim.ai 30 (Tool count not published (5). Paging and filtering not documented (5 of 20). No documented error responses (3 of 20). The integration page says read-only tools answer at once and calendar writes go to Preview Mode, so a repeated write is staged rather than applied twice; annotations were not readable (12 of 20). One URL with OAuth and no SDK (5 of 15). 5 + 5 + 3 + 12 + 5 = 30.)
- Schema & documentation, Apiroc Unified Calendar API +16: Apiroc Unified Calendar API 44 (No OpenAPI spec. A Postman collection is the only machine-readable contract (10). No llms.txt, per the 30 September check (0). Reference pages for five resources with parameters and cURL, TypeScript and Python examples, but little on when to use one endpoint over another (10). Typed inputs in the Node SDK and required fields marked in the docs (10). Examples throughout, and an errors page that gives only the shape (`error`, `message`, `requestId`) and the 2xx, 4xx and 5xx ranges, with no list of error names (9). `/v1` in the path but no changelog (5).); Reclaim.ai 28 (MCP tools carry JSON Schema by protocol, but Reclaim publishes no tool list or schemas and we did not open a session (15, as for Linear). No llms.txt (404) (0). Tool descriptions not readable (5). Input typing not verifiable (5). Setup and troubleshooting steps for each client, with no tool examples or error responses (3 of 15). No changelog or versioning for the MCP server found (0). 15 + 0 + 5 + 5 + 3 + 0 = 28.)
- Payments & pricing, Apiroc Unified Calendar API +15: Apiroc Unified Calendar API 40 (No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Plan prices and $0.50 per extra end-user account a month published without login (20). Free plan for 10 end-user accounts with no card (20). Browser signup and a dashboard key, no autonomous route (0).); Reclaim.ai 25 (No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Per-seat plan prices are public, with nothing per call (10). Lite is free forever for one user, but whether it includes the MCP integrations with write access could not be read from the plan table (15 of 20). A person signs up in a browser and approves OAuth (0). 0 + 10 + 15 + 0 = 25.)
- Reliability, Reclaim.ai +10: Apiroc Unified Calendar API 35 (No public status page with history. status.apiroc.com doesn't resolve and the homepage shows only an "All systems operational" badge with a claim of 34B+ API calls (0). No readable incident history (5). Rate limits published with numbers, 20 requests a second in Sandbox and 300 in Production per application, plus 600 a minute per Google account and 1,000 a minute per Microsoft account (15). The docs don't mention 429 or Retry-After, though the official Node SDK reads a `retry-after` header on 429, and webhook docs say to dedupe on `svix-id` (5). The terms say availability can't be guaranteed, and no SLA was found on any plan (0). GA, with production use licensed on Pro (10).); Reclaim.ai 45 (Graded as a hosted service on the MCP server at mcp.reclaim.ai. Statuspage at status.reclaim.ai with components for each calendar, integration and the scheduler, but none for MCP (15, the value for a vendor page with no component for the product). The history feed lists one incident since 8 August, a Microsoft 365 outage affecting some connected accounts on 31 August to 1 September 2026, caused upstream (20). No rate limits found (0). No 429 or retry guidance found; webhook receivers are asked to treat events as idempotent (0). No SLA found (0). The MCP server is not labelled beta (10). 15 + 20 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 10 = 45.)