vs
FootyStats vs Cito API (2026)
Short answer: FootyStats scores clearly higher overall (53 vs 45). Cito API is the better pick for developers building UFC and MMA apps or betting models who need fighters, cards, round stats and odds, with a free key to start.
From public data checked . How we know
Choose FootyStats if you…
Sports data API
Best for: Football apps, stats sites and ML projects that need cards, corners, BTTS and over/under statistics across many leagues, with a free tier to test.
- ✓ need Football (soccer)
- ✓ value a large open-source ecosystem of wrappers and examples
- ✓ care most about what developers report in practice
Not ideal for: Projects that need sports other than football or sub-minute live updates; results refresh about every 20 minutes.
What developers say
Soccer stats API and CSV downloads covering many leagues, used by betting-model builders and scrapers for BTTS, corners and over/under data. Bettors mention it as an affordable broad source, but several say data has gaps, odd or inconsistent numbers and weaker xG than FBref-style sources. Used with other feeds for odds.
Choose Cito API if you…
Sports data API
Best for: Developers building UFC and MMA apps or betting models who need fighters, cards, round stats and odds, with a free key to start.
- ✓ need MMA, Esports, Tennis
- ✓ want WebSocket push instead of polling
Not ideal for: Teams that need official or rights-cleared league data, or wide coverage beyond MMA, esports and tennis.
What developers say
Newer unified sports and esports API with UFC, CS2, Dota 2 and LoL data, a free key and paid plans. Only a few small hobby repos use it, plus an automatic OpenAPI import issue. There are no user discussions, so quality, limits and pricing feedback are unknown.
Side by side
| FootyStats | Cito API | |
|---|---|---|
| SportDex Score | 53/100 (#35) | 45/100 (#86) |
| Popularity | 52 | 15 |
| Community & reliability | 50 | Not enough data |
| Transparency | 60 | 75 |
| Developer experience | 50 | 68 |
| Type | Sports data API | Sports data API |
| Starting price | Free tier | Free tier |
| Free tier | Yes | Yes |
| Free trial | Not stated | Demo access |
| Sports | Football (soccer) | MMA, Esports, Tennis |
| Data | Fixtures, Historical data, Player stats, Results, Standings, Team stats | Fixtures, Historical data, Odds, Player stats, Results, Live scores, Standings, Team stats |
| Delivery | Polling only (REST) | Streaming (WebSocket, SSE) |
| Protocols | REST | REST, WebSocket, SSE |
| Live / in-play | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Commercial use | Commercial: not disclosed | Commercial: Paid plans only |
| Betting products | Betting: not disclosed | Betting: not disclosed |
| Documentation | Docs | Docs |
| Developer discussions | 6 | 0 |
| GitHub repos | 95 | 11 |
| Community tone | Mixed | Too little discussion |
Empty fields mean the provider does not say, not that the feature is missing.
Quick answers
- Is FootyStats or Cito API better?
- FootyStats scores clearly higher overall (53 vs 45). Cito API is the better pick for developers building UFC and MMA apps or betting models who need fighters, cards, round stats and odds, with a free key to start.
- Which is cheaper, FootyStats or Cito API?
- FootyStats: Free tier. Cito API: Free tier. Entry plans differ in limits and coverage, so compare what each plan includes.
- Do FootyStats and Cito API have a free tier?
- FootyStats: yes. Cito API: yes.