vsFastF1 vs Jolpica-F1 (2026)
Short answer: FastF1 scores clearly higher overall (58 vs 50). Jolpica-F1 is the better pick for Formula 1 projects, especially ones migrating from the retired Ergast API, that need free historical results and standings.
From public data checked . How we know
Choose FastF1 if you…
Free / open data
Best for: Python users analysing Formula 1 lap timing, telemetry, tyres and weather, such as hobbyist and research notebooks.
- ✓ care most about what developers report in practice
Not ideal for: Non-Python projects or hosted-API needs; it is a Python library, not a web service, and most data needs an F1TV subscription.
What developers say
Popular unofficial Python package giving F1 timing, telemetry and results as DataFrames; the go-to for analysis posts, student projects and dashboards, with a large GitHub following. Other projects borrow its live-timing client. Caveats: most data needs F1TV access, a network-blocking issue was reported, and beginners hit version-related errors. Often paired with Jolpica or OpenF1.
Choose Jolpica-F1 if you…
Free / open data
Best for: Formula 1 projects, especially ones migrating from the retired Ergast API, that need free historical results and standings.
- ✓ value a large open-source ecosystem of wrappers and examples
Not ideal for: Commercial products needing guarantees: it is volunteer-run, rate-limited and the licence does not address the data.
What developers say
Free, volunteer-run Formula 1 API that took over from the retired Ergast service with compatible endpoints. Widely adopted: roughly thirty GitHub repos, popular F1 data-visualisation posts, and projects that integrate it for historical results and standings. Little explicit praise or criticism in discussion; no pricing or reliability complaints surfaced.
Side by side
| FastF1 | Jolpica-F1 | |
|---|---|---|
| SportDex Score | 58/100 (#23) | 50/100 (#52) |
| Popularity | 35 | 33 |
| Community & reliability | 78 | Not enough data |
| Transparency | 65 | 75 |
| Developer experience | 65 | 53 |
| Type | Free / open data | Free / open data |
| Starting price | Free tier | Free tier |
| Free tier | Yes | Yes |
| Free trial | Not stated | Not stated |
| Sports | Formula 1, Motorsport | Formula 1, Motorsport |
| Data | Fixtures, Historical data, Results, Team stats, Tracking data | Fixtures, Historical data, Results, Standings, Team stats |
| Delivery | SDK only | Polling only (REST) |
| Protocols | SDK only | REST |
| Live / in-play | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Commercial use | Commercial: not disclosed | Commercial: not disclosed |
| Betting products | Betting: not disclosed | Betting: not disclosed |
| Documentation | Docs | Docs |
| Developer discussions | 10 | 2 |
| GitHub repos | 118 | 1.6k |
| Community tone | Mostly positive | Neutral |
Empty fields mean the provider does not say, not that the feature is missing.
Quick answers
- Is FastF1 or Jolpica-F1 better?
- FastF1 scores clearly higher overall (58 vs 50). Jolpica-F1 is the better pick for Formula 1 projects, especially ones migrating from the retired Ergast API, that need free historical results and standings.
- Which is cheaper, FastF1 or Jolpica-F1?
- FastF1: Free tier. Jolpica-F1: Free tier. Entry plans differ in limits and coverage, so compare what each plan includes.
- Do FastF1 and Jolpica-F1 have a free tier?
- FastF1: yes. Jolpica-F1: yes.