# FlightClaw vs ETG API (RateHawk) (slim)

> 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.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/flightclaw-vs-ratehawk.md (~2,400 tokens) · this version ~780 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/flightclaw-vs-ratehawk.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/flightclaw-vs-ratehawk
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.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: E 45.3, rank #659 of 722 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/flightclaw.min.md
- ETG API (RateHawk): D 53, rank #554 of 722 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/ratehawk.min.md
- FlightClaw, 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 Runs on your own machine; Free to start without a card; Open source.
- ETG API (RateHawk), 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.

| Category | FlightClaw | ETG API (RateHawk) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reliability (16%) | 30 | 45 |
| Performance (10%) | pending | pending |
| Schema & documentation (13%) | 50 | 85 |
| Agent ergonomics (13%) | 47 | 69 |
| Security & auth (14%) | 50 | 41 |
| Payments & pricing (10%) | 50 | 10 |
| Task success (10%) | pending | pending |
| Maintenance & community (7%) | 68 | 65 |
| Transparency & trust (7%) | 29 | 56 |

| Fact (where they differ) | 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |