Metals-API vs GoldAPI.io
Developers picking a metals-pricing API often narrow their shortlist to Metals-API and GoldAPI.io, two providers built on different theories of coverage. Metals-API chases breadth across the full metals catalog; GoldAPI.io stays closer to gold and silver with a specific claim on where its numbers come from (LBMA fixing rights). Below is what each publishes about itself, read straight off their own pricing and documentation pages.
| Feature | Metals-API | GoldAPI.io |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | ||
| Cheapest paid plan | $29/mo | $4.99/mo |
| Production-tier plan | $99/mo | $129/mo |
| Overage policy | Auto-bills | Auto-bills |
| Coverage | ||
| Currencies supported | 170+ | 160+ |
| Silver (XAG) spot + futures | Yes | Yes |
| Industrial metals beyond gold/silver (Al, Ni, Zn…) | Yes | No (copper not offered) |
| LBMA AM/PM fix redistribution rights | Not stated in their public docs | Yes |
| Historical daily depth | Not stated in their public docs | 20+ years |
| Developer experience | ||
| Fixer.io-compatible endpoint shape | Yes, stated explicitly | Not stated in their public docs |
| TypeScript / Python SDK | Community-maintained | Community-maintained |
| Native MCP server | None | None (as of April 2026) |
| Live since / stated founding | Not stated in their public docs | 2020 |
Source: metals-api.com and goldapi.io public pricing pages, as captured on our /comparison/metals-api and /comparison/goldapi-io pages. Last verified 2026-04-20 for both.
Pricing: two different entry bets
GoldAPI.io undercuts Metals-API at the entry rung by nearly $25/mo ($4.99 against $29). That gap flips further up the ladder: Metals-API's production tier lands at $99/mo, cheaper than GoldAPI.io's $129/mo. A team that only ever needs a low-volume gold feed pays less on GoldAPI.io; a team that scales into a production workload pays less on Metals-API.
Both bill overage automatically rather than throttling requests. Neither publishes a hard cutoff, so a traffic spike shows up as a bill rather than a blocked call on either service.
Coverage: full catalog against a gold-and-silver focus
Metals-API's catalog reaches into industrial metals, aluminum, nickel, zinc, and more, on the same key that serves gold. GoldAPI.io's own comparison page shows copper marked as unsupported, and neither provider's page documents a wider industrial lineup for GoldAPI.io.
Both list silver spot and futures at parity with gold. Currency coverage sits close: Metals-API states 170+, GoldAPI.io states 160+. Neither difference is likely to be the deciding factor unless a specific currency is a hard requirement.
Where the numbers come from
GoldAPI.io states it holds LBMA AM/PM fix redistribution rights, giving it a named benchmark tie to point to. Metals-API's page makes no equivalent claim about a specific fixing source. GoldAPI.io also states 20+ years of historical daily depth; Metals-API's page doesn't state an equivalent figure for its own history.
Developer experience
Metals-API states its endpoint shape follows the Fixer.io convention, which matters if a team is migrating off Fixer and wants to avoid rewriting request logic. GoldAPI.io's page makes no equivalent shape claim. Both list their TypeScript and Python SDKs as community-maintained rather than first-party, so either choice means budgeting extra review time for the wrapper library itself.
FAQ
- Which is cheaper to start with, Metals-API or GoldAPI.io?
- GoldAPI.io, by a wide margin. Its cheapest paid plan is $4.99/mo against Metals-API's $29/mo entry tier. The gap narrows further up the ladder: GoldAPI.io's production plan runs $129/mo, more than Metals-API's $99/mo equivalent.
- Does either one hold LBMA fixing rights?
- GoldAPI.io states it holds LBMA AM/PM fix redistribution rights on its pricing page. Metals-API's own page doesn't make an equivalent claim, so treat this as a genuine point of difference rather than an oversight.
- I need metals beyond gold and silver. Does either cover that?
- Metals-API does. Its catalog extends into industrial metals, aluminum, nickel, zinc, and others, on the same key. GoldAPI.io's own comparison page marks copper as unsupported, and neither page documents a broader industrial catalog for GoldAPI.io.
- Are the SDKs officially maintained?
- Neither, at the same level. Both providers list TypeScript and Python SDKs as community-maintained rather than an in-house release, per the sourced comparison pages for each.
- What happens if I go over my quota on either plan?
- Both auto-bill for overage rather than throttling or rejecting the request, per their public pricing pages. Budget-sensitive teams should build their own usage alerts regardless of which one they pick.
- Which has been around longer?
- GoldAPI.io's site states it has been live since 2020. Metals-API's page doesn't publish an equivalent founding date, so a like-for-like maturity comparison isn't possible from public sources alone.
If neither one tells you where a number actually came from, that's the gap we built for.
A developer comparing Metals-API and GoldAPI.io is usually trying to answer one question neither vendor's pricing page settles: can I trace this price back to a named source with a timestamp, or am I trusting a single blended number? goldprice.dev answers it with a sources[] array (via ?include=sources) on every response, plus an is_stale flag, starting at $10/mo for gold. Pro ( $30/mo) adds silver and copper on the same provenance model. It's a narrower catalog than either of these two, built for people who need to defend a number, not just display one.