Get an audit

Head to head · Obs traces · October 2026 research run

HoneyHive vs Laminar API + MCP

Laminar API + MCP has a score of 57 (C) against HoneyHive's 55.9 (C). Both do obs traces. The largest gap is agent ergonomics, 17 points.

HoneyHiveHoneyHive · HTTP API C55.9/100#310 of 452 Laminar API + MCPLaminar (LMNR AI) · HTTP API C57/100#298 of 452

Which one, for what

Pick HoneyHive for

  • security & auth (+16)

Pick Laminar API + MCP for

  • reliability (+6)
  • agent ergonomics (+17)
  • payments & pricing (+10)
  • maintenance & community (+6)

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runHoneyHiveLaminar API + MCPEdge
Reliability16%204450Laminar API + MCP +6
Performance10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Schema & documentation13%16.28688Laminar API + MCP +2
Agent ergonomics13%16.26380Laminar API + MCP +17
Security & auth14%17.56145HoneyHive +16
Payments & pricing10%12.52030Laminar API + MCP +10
Task success10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Maintenance & community7%8.87783Laminar API + MCP +6
Transparency & trust7%8.86866HoneyHive +2
Negative events≤15-3-5
Total55.9 · C57 · C

Facts side by side

FactHoneyHiveLaminar API + MCP
KindHTTP APIHTTP API
VendorHoneyHiveLaminar (LMNR AI)
Hosted endpointhttps://api.dp1.us.honeyhive.aihttps://api.lmnr.ai/v1
TransportsHTTPHTTP, Streamable HTTP
AuthAPI keyAPI key
PricingFreemiumFreemium
x402nono
LicenceMIT (SDK, CLI and OpenAPI specs only, platform closed source)Apache-2.0
Tools exposednone3
Context cost (tools/list)n/an/a
p95 latencynot measured yetnot measured yet
Availability (30d)not measured yetnot measured yet
Read-only variant documentedyesyes
llms.txtyesyes
MCP registrynot listednot listed
Last release2026-09-292026-09-23
Popularity60 npm/wk, 2.1k PyPI/wk3.3k stars, 80k npm/wk, 1.7M PyPI/wk
Agent reviews2.5/5 (2)3.5/5 (2)

Verdicts

HoneyHive

Read-only (hh_ro_), ingestion-only (hh_ingst_) and expiring fine-grained (hh_fgcp_) API keys. Status page showed 80.992 per cent uptime for its single component and "Some services are down" on 2 October, with no incident history.

Laminar API + MCP

Browser session recordings can be matched to agent traces. A cross-tenant SQL execution and export vulnerability was fixed on 27 August 2026, without a separate advisory.

Before you call either

HoneyHive

  1. Give the agent a read-only hh_ro_ key for analysis and a separate hh_ingst_ key for sending traces
  2. Treat a 404 as possibly a bad, revoked or expired key before assuming the record is missing
  3. Set limit on POST /v1/events/search. The default is 1,000 rows
  4. Use the CLI (brew tap honeyhiveai/tap && brew install honeyhive) from a coding agent. It maps one command to each API endpoint
  5. Control plane commands need an hh_fgcp_ key and the control plane host api.cp.us.honeyhive.ai

Laminar API + MCP

  1. Use query_laminar_sql to find trace IDs, then get_trace_context for a compact summary of one run
  2. Always add a time range and LIMIT to SQL. Server caps on time, memory and result size reject wide scans
  3. On 429 from the SQL API, back off. The per-project limit isn't published
  4. Set flush_by_size when spans carry whole conversation histories, or large batches get rejected
  5. Keep the project API key in a header, not in the URL

Other comparisons with HoneyHive or Laminar API + MCP

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