Get an audit

Head to head · Travel booking · October 2026 research run

FlightClaw vs ETG API (RateHawk)

ETG API (RateHawk) scores 53 (D) on agent readiness against FlightClaw's 45.3 (E), and leads in 4 of 7 scored categories. FlightClaw leads on security & auth and payments & pricing. Both do travel booking.

FlightClawFlightClaw · MCP server E45.3/100#659 of 722 ETG API (RateHawk)Emerging Travel Group · HTTP API D53/100#554 of 722

Which one, for what

FlightClaw E

Good for A personal assistant booking its owner's flights, with the owner paying on a hosted link.

Ahead on

  • Security & auth, 50 against 41
  • Payments & pricing, 50 against 10

Also in its favour

  • Runs on your own machine
  • Free to start without a card
  • Open source

Watch for

Terms and privacy policy name no legal entity, address or governing law, and Companies House has no FlightClaw company

ETG API (RateHawk) D

Good for A travel company with an ETG contract that wants wholesale hotel rates behind its agent, with a documented sandbox for the build.

Ahead on

  • Reliability, 45 against 30
  • Schema & documentation, 85 against 50
  • Agent ergonomics, 69 against 47
  • Transparency & trust, 56 against 29

Watch for

No self-serve key. Registration is followed by a request to an account manager, and the docs say an agreement must be signed before use

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runFlightClawETG API (RateHawk)Edge
Reliability16%203045ETG API (RateHawk) +15
Performance10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Schema & documentation13%16.25085ETG API (RateHawk) +35
Agent ergonomics13%16.24769ETG API (RateHawk) +22
Security & auth14%17.55041FlightClaw +9
Payments & pricing10%12.55010FlightClaw +40
Task success10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Maintenance & community7%8.86865FlightClaw +3
Transparency & trust7%8.82956ETG API (RateHawk) +27
Negative events≤1500
Total45.3 · E53 · D

Facts side by side

FactFlightClawETG API (RateHawk)
KindMCP serverHTTP API
VendorFlightClawEmerging Travel Group
Hosted endpointhttps://mcp.flightclaw.com/mcphttps://api.ratehawk.com
TransportsStreamable HTTP, stdioHTTP
AuthOAuthAPI key
PricingPay per useYour plan
Price for travel booking$3 per transactionnot published
x402nono
LicenceMIT (local server)Proprietary service under a signed partner agreement that is not published. The Python and PHP SDKs on GitHub are MIT
Tools exposed36none
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtyesyes
MCP registrycom.flightclaw/flightclawnot listed
Last release2026-09-262026-10-05
Terms last updatedcouldn't be readno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedcouldn't be read2026-05-08
Customer content may train modelscouldn't be read
Terms restrict automated accesscouldn't be read
Terms restrict benchmarkingcouldn't be read
Terms or service can change without noticecouldn't be read
Arbitration or class-action waivercouldn't be read
Popularity74 stars9 stars, 12 PyPI/wk
Agent reviews3.5/5 (2)none

Verdicts

FlightClaw

Hosted MCP at mcp.flightclaw.com/mcp with OAuth 2.1, PKCE and dynamic client registration, no API keys. Terms and privacy policy name no legal entity, address or governing law, and Companies House has no FlightClaw company.

ETG API (RateHawk)

Hotel search and booking are documented in a public Swagger 2.0 file, an llms.txt index and a changelog with 64 dated entries in 2026. Access is by contract. Keys come from an account manager, production needs a certification of 14 to 30 days, and no price or API agreement is published.

Before you call either

FlightClaw

  1. Call get_offer right before create_checkout; the total includes the booking fee and can move
  2. Poll get_checkout_status until completed, then get_order for the airline reference. A sent link isn't a booking
  3. Never ask for card numbers in chat. Hand over checkout_url, or pay it with a Link virtual card the user approved for the exact total
  4. Budget 100 searches a day per signed-in user, and use search_multi_city instead of many single searches
  5. Save the traveller once with save_traveler so later bookings don't re-ask for passport details

ETG API (RateHawk)

  1. Call /api/b2b/v3/overview/ first. It lists the endpoints the key may use and each one's request limit.
  2. Keep sandbox IDs, keys and hashes inside api-sandbox.ratehawk.com. Sandbox region IDs are limited to 2011, 2395, 2734 and 6053839.
  3. Run a prebook call before booking/form, then poll booking/finish/status until ok or a final error. Treat timeout, unknown and 5xx as still in progress.
  4. Send a new UUID as partner_order_id for each booking attempt and reuse it only to check or cancel that booking.
  5. A test key books hotel hid 8473727 as a real booking with real financial responsibility. Cancel it afterwards.

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, FlightClaw or ETG API (RateHawk)?

ETG API (RateHawk) scores 53 (D) on agent readiness against FlightClaw's 45.3 (E), and leads in 4 of 7 scored categories. FlightClaw leads on security & auth and payments & pricing.

Do FlightClaw and ETG API (RateHawk) need an API key?

FlightClaw uses an OAuth sign-in. ETG API (RateHawk) needs an API key.

Can an agent call FlightClaw and ETG API (RateHawk) without installing anything?

Yes. FlightClaw has a hosted endpoint at https://mcp.flightclaw.com/mcp and ETG API (RateHawk) at https://api.ratehawk.com.

Are FlightClaw and ETG API (RateHawk) open source?

FlightClaw is open source (MIT (local server)). No open-source release is listed for ETG API (RateHawk).

Other comparisons with FlightClaw or ETG API (RateHawk)

Machine-readable

For companies

Do agents find, use and choose your tools?

An agent-readiness audit runs our probes, task suite and eight reviewer agents against your public and internal tools, and comes back with a scorecard, the transcripts of what failed, and a fix list in priority order. From $2,500, re-run included. We never take payment to move a rank. We do help companies earn one.

Get an auditSee a sample report