# Cronofy API vs Reclaim.ai (slim)

> Cronofy scores 67.5 (B) 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/cronofy-vs-reclaim-ai.md (~4,500 tokens) · this version ~2,680 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/cronofy-vs-reclaim-ai.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/cronofy-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)

Cronofy API scores 67.5 (B) on agent readiness against Reclaim.ai's 37.9 (F), and leads in every scored category. Both do calendar access.

- Cronofy API: B 67.5, rank #319 of 1486 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/cronofy.min.md
- Reclaim.ai: F 37.9, rank #1349 of 1486 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/reclaim-ai.min.md
- Cronofy API, good for Products that schedule across many people and rooms with strict data residency, especially in the UK and EU. Ahead on Reliability, 95 against 45; Schema & documentation, 58 against 28; Agent ergonomics, 76 against 30; Security & auth, 60 against 53; Payments & pricing, 30 against 25; Maintenance & community, 71 against 25; Transparency & trust, 72 against 56.
- Reclaim.ai, good for Individuals and teams who already run their calendar through Reclaim and want an assistant to plan their week with approval.

| Category | Cronofy API | Reclaim.ai |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reliability (16%) | 95 | 45 |
| Performance (10%) | pending | pending |
| Schema & documentation (13%) | 58 | 28 |
| Agent ergonomics (13%) | 76 | 30 |
| Security & auth (14%) | 60 | 53 |
| Payments & pricing (10%) | 30 | 25 |
| Task success (10%) | pending | pending |
| Maintenance & community (7%) | 71 | 25 |
| Transparency & trust (7%) | 72 | 56 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Cronofy API | Reclaim.ai |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Kind | HTTP API | MCP server |
| Vendor | Cronofy | Reclaim.ai Inc. |
| Hosted endpoint | `https://api.cronofy.com` | `https://mcp.reclaim.ai` |
| Transports | HTTP, Streamable HTTP | Streamable HTTP |
| Auth | OAuth or key | OAuth |
| Pricing | Paid | Freemium |
| Licence | MIT (SDKs) | none |
| llms.txt | yes | no |
| Last release | 2026-10-30 | none |
| Terms last updated | no date given | 2024-04-08 |
| Privacy policy last updated | no date given | 2025-06-25 |
| Terms restrict automated access | not found in the text | yes |
| Terms restrict benchmarking | yes | not found in the text |
| Terms or service can change without notice | not found in the text | yes |
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | not found in the text | yes |
| Popularity | 51 stars, 11k npm/wk, 10k PyPI/wk | none |
| Agent reviews | 4/5 (2) | none |

Why the edge:
- Reliability, Cronofy API +50: Cronofy API 95 (Atlassian Statuspage at status.cronofy.com with the API, Scheduler, Meeting Agents and each calendar provider as components (20). history.atom shows nothing touching the service from 4 August to 2 November 2026; its one post in the window, on 22 October, says Cronofy is unaffected by two PHP vulnerabilities. The 7 July Event Triggers incident in the US data centre left the window, so a clean record (30, was 20). 50 requests a second and 500 in any 60 seconds by default (15). 429 documented with advice to stop requests temporarily, but no Retry-After or backoff figures. Event writes are upserts keyed on your `event_id`, so a repeat updates rather than duplicates (10). 99.99% uptime guarantee on Emerging and Growth, and an API SLA policy page (10). The API is GA, and the MCP server page no longer carries an early-access label but warns the standard is likely to change (10). 20+30+15+10+10+10 = 95.); 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.)
- Agent ergonomics, Cronofy API +46: Cronofy API 76 (API responses can be narrowed, for example Availability's `response_format` of slots and the `only_managed` flag on events (15). Pagination and filters exist on event reads per the docs, but we didn't verify page sizes (12). Specific errors an agent can act on, such as 402 for a plan gap, 403 naming the missing scope and 423 when the user must relink (18). Event creates are idempotent by `event_id`, though we couldn't see MCP tool annotations (16). Official SDKs in Node, Python, Ruby, C# and more (15).); 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.)
- Maintenance & community, Cronofy API +46: Cronofy API 71 (Cronofy's UI Elements, the JavaScript components it publishes for its API, carry a dated changelog in the docs with three code releases in October 2026, 1.68.0 (15 October, Romanian language support), 1.68.1 (22 October, the Availability Rules element now encodes rule IDs in its request) and 1.68.2 (28 October, Date Time Picker keyboard and screen reader support), so the last code release is within 30 days (30). pycronofy 2.1.2 (30 October) and 2.1.1 (25 September) change only packaging, 2.1.0 (8 May) only replaces the pytz dependency with the standard library, and cronofy-node's newest tag, v3.8.4 (15 September 2025), bumps axios. In the 90 days from 4 August, the three UI Elements releases and the two pycronofy packaging releases, counted half (20, was 5). Support through the docs, support pages and support@cronofy.com, and cronofy-node merged an outside docs pull request on 7 October; the API changelog can't be read (5). SDKs exist in several languages but most are slow-moving, Node last tagged v3.8.4 on 15 September 2025 and Ruby last tagged in 2023 (8). CI on the Node and Python SDKs, with Python 3.15 added on 30 October 2026 (8). 30+20+5+8+8 = 71.); 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.)
- Schema & documentation, Cronofy API +30: Cronofy API 58 (No OpenAPI or other machine-readable contract found (0). llms.txt with about 35 to 40 links and Markdown copies of pages (10). Reference pages explain each parameter and spell out provider differences, such as Exchange and Office 365 taking only the start time zone (17). Required parameters, types and limits (such as 1,024 characters for `summary`) on each page (12). Examples on every endpoint, and an error page covering 400 to 500 with 422 bodies that carry a machine-readable `key` (14). `/v1` in the path. The changelog at changelog.cronofy.com is on a host whose robots.txt disallows every agent but a list of search crawlers, so the 1 October reading of it (undated entries, years old) is struck and it is unread (5, on path versioning alone).); 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.)
- Transparency & trust, Cronofy API +16: Cronofy API 72 (Closed service with terms naming Cronofy Limited (company 07878590) under English law, and MIT-licensed SDKs (15). The data management policy gives numbers. Third-party events kept 30 days after the last authorisation ends, managed events 90 days, application logs up to 90 days, backups 7 days in-region, and Aurora with KMS at rest (26). No deprecation policy found, only one note that `available_periods` stays supported (5). Six data centres with no personal data moving between them, but we found no sub-processor list (12).); Reclaim.ai 56 (Closed service under terms of 8 April 2024 naming Reclaim.ai Inc. (15 of 30). The privacy policy (25 June 2025) keeps data as long as reasonably necessary, the security page describes self-service deletion of calendar data, and Data Privacy Framework participation is claimed, with no retention periods (15 of 30). Reclaim 1.0 users are moved to 2.0, and no deprecation policy or dates were found (3 of 20). A public subprocessor list names AWS, Google and others with links to their terms (15 of 20). 15 + 15 + 3 + 15 = 48.)
- Security & auth, Cronofy API +7: Cronofy API 60 (Per-user OAuth with fine scopes, including `free_busy` alone, `read_only`, and `delete_event` separate from `create_event`. Application calls and the single-tenant MCP use the application's `client_secret` as a Bearer token, which reaches every connected account (25). An agent can be limited to free/busy or to events it created (`only_managed`), but nothing confirms deletes (17). Event titles and descriptions from third parties come back with no injection guidance (0). No operator audit log found (0). ISO 27001, 27018 and 27701, SOC 2 Type 2 and a public bug bounty policy. No security.txt, per the 30 September check (18).); 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.)