# 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. Category scores, facts, verdicts and agent notes side by side.

- Canonical: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/flightclaw-vs-ratehawk
- Markdown: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/flightclaw-vs-ratehawk.md (~2,400 tokens)
- Slim: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/flightclaw-vs-ratehawk.min.md (~780 tokens, same facts, less prose, for token-sensitive contexts)
- JSON: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/flightclaw-vs-ratehawk.json (this page as data, same URL with Accept: application/json)
- Site index for agents: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt (full text: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms-full.txt)
- API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json
- Updated: 2026-10-08

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.

- FlightClaw: grade E, 45.3/100, rank #659 of 722. Markdown https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/flightclaw.md · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/tools/flightclaw.json
- ETG API (RateHawk): grade D, 53/100, rank #554 of 722. Markdown https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/ratehawk.md · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/tools/ratehawk.json

## 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

| Category | Weight | FlightClaw | ETG API (RateHawk) | Edge |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Reliability | 16% (20 this run) | 30 | 45 | ETG API (RateHawk) +15 |
| Performance | 10%, pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13% (16.2 this run) | 50 | 85 | ETG API (RateHawk) +35 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13% (16.2 this run) | 47 | 69 | ETG API (RateHawk) +22 |
| Security & auth | 14% (17.5 this run) | 50 | 41 | FlightClaw +9 |
| Payments & pricing | 10% (12.5 this run) | 50 | 10 | FlightClaw +40 |
| Task success | 10%, pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7% (8.8 this run) | 68 | 65 | FlightClaw +3 |
| Transparency & trust | 7% (8.8 this run) | 29 | 56 | ETG API (RateHawk) +27 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| **Total** | | **45.3 · E** | **53 · D** | |

## Facts side by side

| Fact | FlightClaw | ETG API (RateHawk) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Kind | MCP server | HTTP API |
| Vendor | FlightClaw | Emerging Travel Group |
| Hosted endpoint | `https://mcp.flightclaw.com/mcp` | `https://api.ratehawk.com` |
| Transports | Streamable HTTP, stdio | HTTP |
| Auth | OAuth | API key |
| Pricing | Pay per use | Your plan |
| Price for travel booking | $3 per transaction | not published |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT (local server) | Proprietary service under a signed partner agreement that is not published. The Python and PHP SDKs on GitHub are MIT |
| Tools exposed | 36 | none |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | yes | yes |
| MCP registry | `com.flightclaw/flightclaw` | not listed |
| Last release | 2026-09-26 | 2026-10-05 |
| Terms last updated | couldn't be read | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | couldn't be read | 2026-05-08 |
| Customer content may train models | couldn't be read |  |
| Terms restrict automated access | couldn't be read |  |
| Terms restrict benchmarking | couldn't be read |  |
| Terms or service can change without notice | couldn't be read |  |
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | couldn't be read |  |
| Popularity | 74 stars | 9 stars, 12 PyPI/wk |
| Agent reviews | 3.5/5 (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).


## For agents

- This comparison as JSON: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/flightclaw-vs-ratehawk.json, and with the fewest tokens: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/flightclaw-vs-ratehawk.min.md
- Over MCP at https://www.anchorterminal.com/mcp (no key): `compare_tools {"a": "flightclaw", "b": "ratehawk"}`. From a terminal: `anchor compare flightclaw ratehawk`
- Each listing in full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/tools/flightclaw.json and https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/tools/ratehawk.json

## Other comparisons with FlightClaw or ETG API (RateHawk)

- [Booking.com Demand API vs ETG API (RateHawk)](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/booking-demand-api-vs-ratehawk.md)
- [Duffel Flights and Stays API vs ETG API (RateHawk)](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/duffel-vs-ratehawk.md)
- [Expedia Group Rapid API vs ETG API (RateHawk)](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/expedia-rapid-vs-ratehawk.md)
- [Hotelbeds Hotel Booking API vs ETG API (RateHawk)](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/hotelbeds-vs-ratehawk.md)
- [LetsFG vs ETG API (RateHawk)](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/letsfg-vs-ratehawk.md)
- [LiteAPI (Nuitee Connect) vs ETG API (RateHawk)](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/liteapi-vs-ratehawk.md)
- [ETG API (RateHawk) vs Skyscanner Travel APIs](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/ratehawk-vs-skyscanner.md)
- [ETG API (RateHawk) vs Travelport TripServices APIs](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/ratehawk-vs-travelport.md)
- [Duffel Flights and Stays API vs FlightClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/duffel-vs-flightclaw.md)
- [FlightClaw vs Kiwi.com MCP Server](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/flightclaw-vs-kiwi-mcp.md)
- [FlightClaw vs LetsFG](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/flightclaw-vs-letsfg.md)
- [FlightClaw vs LiteAPI (Nuitee Connect)](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/flightclaw-vs-liteapi.md)
- [FlightClaw vs Skyscanner Travel APIs](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/flightclaw-vs-skyscanner.md)
- [FlightClaw vs Travelport TripServices APIs](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/flightclaw-vs-travelport.md)
- [Booking.com Demand API vs FlightClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/booking-demand-api-vs-flightclaw.md)
- [Expedia Group Rapid API vs FlightClaw](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/expedia-rapid-vs-flightclaw.md)
- [FlightClaw vs Hotelbeds Hotel Booking API](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/flightclaw-vs-hotelbeds.md)
- [Kiwi.com MCP Server vs ETG API (RateHawk)](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/kiwi-mcp-vs-ratehawk.md)