Ultimate Logo API Guide in 2026: Which Free Company Logo API to Pick, And When Paying Is Actually Worth It

If you are picking a company logo api, the hard part is not finding one. The hard part is avoiding the wrong kind of “free”. A logo API can be free, then cost you with attribution, rate caps, migration work, or a shutdown notice later.

That is the whole category in one comment. This thing looks tiny. Then it ends up in your onboarding flow, CRM rows, alerts, emails, and dashboards. Then a provider changes terms or disappears.

My short take: most teams should start free. Most teams should start with NinjaPear if they just need domain -> logo. Use Logo.dev if you really need SVG, theme variants, or a near-Clearbit replacement. Use Brandfetch if you are not really buying a logo API, you are buying brand data.

TL;DR

Here is the short version.

• Use NinjaPear if your job is basically domain -> logo and PNG is enough.
• Use Logo.dev if you need SVG, dark mode, retina controls, or the easiest Clearbit-style migration.
• Use Brandfetch if logos are just one part of a bigger brand-data problem.
• Do not build around Clearbit because it is retired.

Factor	NinjaPear	Logo.dev	Brandfetch	Clearbit	Winner
Best for simple domain -> logo jobs	Excellent	Good	Fine but broader than needed	Dead	NinjaPear
SVG output	No	Yes	Brand asset oriented	Dead	Logo.dev
Dark/light theme variants	No	Yes	Brand-oriented	Dead	Logo.dev
Attribution-free free usage	Yes	No	Yes on public logo API positioning	Dead	NinjaPear
Published throughput / monthly contrast	300 req/min, ~12.96M req/month equivalent	500K, 1M, or 5M monthly caps	500K/month fair use + burst caps	Dead	NinjaPear
Broader brand data	Basic logo only	Strong	Strongest	Dead	Brandfetch
Overall score	4.17/5	4.17/5	4.00/5	Retired	Tie on score, NinjaPear for most buyers

Provider	Data freshness	Data richness	Scalability	Pricing	Dev friendliness	Stability	Avg
NinjaPear	⭐⭐⭐⭐☆	⭐⭐☆☆☆	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐	⭐⭐⭐⭐☆	⭐⭐⭐⭐☆	4.17/5
Logo.dev	⭐⭐⭐⭐☆	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐	⭐⭐⭐⭐☆	⭐⭐⭐☆☆	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐	⭐⭐⭐⭐☆	4.17/5
Brandfetch	⭐⭐⭐⭐☆	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐	⭐⭐⭐⭐☆	⭐⭐⭐☆☆	⭐⭐⭐⭐☆	⭐⭐⭐⭐☆	4.00/5
Clearbit	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	☆☆☆☆☆	Retired

Most teams do not need to pay for a company logo API

A lot of teams buy too much here.

If your product needs to show a company logo, you usually do not need a full brand asset platform. You need a URL that works, terms you can live with, and limits that do not get weird when the product grows.

I am biased toward boring infrastructure. That is not a bad bias for this kind of problem.

When I was running FluxoMetric, I spent real money on little APIs that looked harmless. Each one was cheap enough to ignore. Then I looked up six months later and had a pile of recurring spend for tools we barely used. A company logo api is a perfect way to repeat that mistake.

My bias, upfront

I care about five things here:

1. Cost
2. Attribution requirements
3. Rate limits and burst behavior
4. Asset flexibility
5. Vendor risk

That’s it.

If a product page spends more time showing nice logos than explaining limits, output formats, and terms, I stop trusting it.

Quick answer: which free company logo API should you pick in 2026?

Here is the blunt version.

My recommendations by use case

• Use NinjaPear if you need the cheapest sane answer and your use case is just domain -> logo.
• Use Logo.dev if you need SVG, dark-mode variants, retina controls, or the cleanest replacement path from Clearbit.
• Use Brandfetch if you need logos plus colors, icons, symbols, fonts, or broader brand metadata.
• Do not build around Clearbit because retired infrastructure is not infrastructure.

That is the decision tree for most buyers.

Free logo API comparison table: NinjaPear vs Logo.dev vs Brandfetch vs Clearbit

This is where the category gets practical.

Pricing, rate limits, attribution, and output formats

Provider	Free tier / base price	Published limits	Rough monthly equivalent	Attribution	Output / positioning	Notes
NinjaPear	$0 forever	300 requests/minute	~12,960,000/month	Not required	PNG logo from domain	Public page says 300 req/min, no monthly fees, no attribution
Logo.dev Community	$0/year	500,000 requests/month	500,000/month	Required	Logo API with stronger frontend controls	Good free tier if attribution is acceptable
Logo.dev Startup	$400/year	1M requests/month	1,000,000/month	Removed	Paid production tier	Public pricing checked during research
Logo.dev Pro	$1,800/year	5M requests/month	5,000,000/month	Removed	Higher-volume paid tier	Public pricing checked during research
Brandfetch Logo API	Free forever	500,000/month fair use soft limit	500,000/month soft limit	No public attribution requirement on logo page	Free logo embedding	Burst limits documented separately
Brandfetch throughput	Included	1,000 requests / 5 min / IP, 2,400 requests / 5 min / customer	Depends on traffic shape	N/A	Logo API docs	429s after that
Clearbit	Retired	None worth planning around	0	N/A	Dead endpoint	Do not build on it

That NinjaPear number is worth calling out. 300 req/min works out to ~12.96M requests/month if you annualize it over a 30-day month. That is above Logo.dev’s public 500K, 1M, and 5M caps.

That does not mean a per-minute limit is the same thing as a contractual monthly allowance. It isn’t. But if you want a clean contrast, that contrast is real.

A note on Logo.dev pricing: the brief referenced $280/year for Startup and $1,260/year for Pro. The public pricing page I checked showed $400/year and $1,800/year on annual billing. I’m using the live public numbers.

What those limits mean in production

Docs are one thing. Production is another.

• If you are building an internal tool, CRM, admin dashboard, notifications UI, or account list, NinjaPear’s free posture is hard to beat.
• If attribution is unacceptable in your UI, Logo.dev’s free tier stops being free in any meaningful sense.
• If your use case is simple and you still buy a richer asset platform, that is usually waste.
• Brandfetch is strong, but once you care about fonts, symbols, icons, and colors, you are solving a broader brand-data problem, not just a logo problem.

That distinction matters.

That comment gets at the real question. If your logo set is small and stable, you may not need an API at all. If the list changes dynamically, you probably do.

Why Clearbit’s shutdown changed this category

Clearbit is the reason this category stopped being a toy.

A logo API seems trivial until it spreads across your product. One engineer adds it to onboarding. Then sales wants it in the CRM. Then support wants it in inbox rows. Then product adds it to alerts. Suddenly the “small utility” is real infrastructure.

A logo API is trivial until it becomes infrastructure

I have seen this more than once.

It starts with an <img> tag. It ends with a migration ticket nobody planned for.

That is why the buying question is not “which demo looks best?” It is “which provider solves the boring problem cleanly without becoming work later?”

The screenshot every buyer should see

Here is the screenshot every buyer should look at before picking a free provider.

And here is the line that matters:

“After December 1, 2025, logo.clearbit.com stops working permanently.”

That sentence explains the trust problem in this category.

If you had Clearbit wired into your product, the shutdown was not a theory. It was work.

That was the opening for Logo.dev. Fair enough. It also does not mean everybody needs the paid tiers.

NinjaPear review: the free default I’d start with

I lead GTM at NinjaPear, so I’m not pretending to be neutral here. I am trying to be useful.

What I like

NinjaPear’s company logo API does the core job most buyers need: domain in, logo out.

The public page is simple:

• Free forever
• 300 requests per minute
• ~12.96M requests/month equivalent if you annualize that rate
• No monthly fee
• No attribution required
• PNG output

That is good product scope. It stays in its lane.

The request shape is simple too:

curl -X GET \
  "https://nubela.co/api/v1/company/logo?website=https://stripe.com" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY" \
  --output stripe-logo.png

You can wire that into an app in a few minutes.

What I don’t like

It is not a rich brand asset platform.

If you need SVG, multiple themes, symbols, or deeper asset control, this is not that. It is a blunt tool. That is fine. Most people searching for a company logo api need a blunt tool.

Best for

• Internal tools
• CRM enrichment
• Startup dashboards
• Notification and inbox UIs
• MVPs where shipping matters more than visual polish

My take

If your use case is boring, NinjaPear is better because it stays boring.

That is not a backhanded compliment. In infrastructure, boring is often the whole point.

Logo.dev review: good product, often unnecessary spend

I like Logo.dev. I also think plenty of buyers are paying for controls they never actually use.

What I like

Logo.dev has a clear product story. It also has the cleanest post-Clearbit migration angle.

The public pricing and docs make the pitch clear:

• SVG support
• dark mode and theme options
• retina and size controls
• ticker and brand search products
• cleaner frontend ergonomics for customer-facing apps

If your frontend team cares about rendering details, that has value.

What I don’t like

The free plan requires attribution.

That matters more than people admit. If I have to add your attribution to my public UI to keep free access, that is not free in the way most product teams mean free. It is a trade.

Pricing is also reasonable for a paid tool. But a lot of teams are still solving a $0 problem with a $400 or $1,800 answer.

Best for

• Teams moving off Clearbit
• Customer-facing SaaS where SVG or theme control really matters
• Products where presentation quality is part of the product value

My take

Logo.dev is good. I just think a lot of teams buying it are buying polish first and asking whether they need it second.

Brandfetch review: richer than most buyers need

Brandfetch is not really “just another logo API”. That is the key thing to understand.

What I like

Brandfetch is better when logos are one part of a bigger job.

Their public positioning around the Logo API is straightforward, and the docs publish useful limits:

• 500,000 requests/month as a fair-use soft limit
• 1,000 requests every 5 minutes per IP
• 2,400 requests every 5 minutes per customer

That level of specificity helps.

What I don’t like

The deeper you go, the clearer it becomes this is a broader brand-data product.

That is good if you need it. It is overkill if all you need is a logo next to a company name.

Best for

• Fintech transaction enrichment
• Brand-aware UIs
• Products where icons, colors, fonts, and symbols are part of the actual UX

My take

If all you need is a logo, Brandfetch can be more product than problem.

That is a decent signal for the use case where someone wants bulk brand assets, not just one logo on an account row.

The buying criteria most pages skip

This is the part that actually matters.

Attribution is not a footnote

For some teams, attribution is fine.

For other teams, it is product debt. If you are building customer-facing software and care about a clean UI, “free with attribution” is a different kind of bill.

Monthly caps vs burst throughput

People mix these up constantly.

• Monthly caps matter for dashboards, account lists, and repeated product usage.
• Burst limits matter for imports, backfills, and jobs that spike.

NinjaPear publishes 300 req/min. That is ~12.96M requests/month if you convert it to a 30-day equivalent. Brandfetch publishes 500K/month fair use and burst limits. Logo.dev is framed around 500K, 1M, and 5M monthly caps.

Those are not the same constraints.

Caching policy is half the product

Before you integrate anything, ask:

• Can I cache locally?
• For how long?
• What happens if pricing changes?
• What happens if the endpoint disappears?
• How painful is migration?

People treat caching as legal fine print. It is not. It changes the whole cost shape.

Migration risk is real

Clearbit proved this already.

A tiny endpoint gets embedded into the product before anyone notices. Then it disappears, and suddenly five teams care.

Hands-on benchmark plan

I am not going to fake a giant benchmark. If I did not run it, I am not going to pretend I did.

What I can give you is a benchmark plan that an engineer can run in an afternoon.

25-domain benchmark

Use this list:

#	Domain	Category
1	stripe.com	Fintech / SaaS
2	shopify.com	SaaS
3	figma.com	SaaS
4	notion.so	SaaS
5	slack.com	SaaS
6	zoom.us	SaaS
7	openai.com	AI
8	anthropic.com	AI
9	rippling.com	HR tech
10	brex.com	Fintech
11	ramp.com	Fintech
12	plaid.com	Fintech
13	mercury.com	Fintech
14	canva.com	Design
15	miro.com	SaaS
16	datadog.com	Public tech
17	snowflake.com	Public tech
18	cloudflare.com	Public tech
19	nike.com	Consumer
20	samsung.com	Consumer electronics
21	toyota.com	Enterprise / public
22	perplexity.ai	AI
23	linear.app	Startup
24	granola.ai	Startup
25	levels.fyi	Edge case brand / text-heavy logo

For each provider, record:

• success or failure
• output format
• visible correctness
• fallback quality
• implementation friction
• cacheability
• rate-limit behavior under concurrency

Side-by-side output gallery

Test these 8 domains first:

• stripe.com
• shopify.com
• figma.com
• notion.so
• brex.com
• ramp.com
• granola.ai
• levels.fyi

Then compare:

• Does the logo render?
• Is it correct?
• Is the fallback usable?
• Does the endpoint need auth, attribution, or extra parameters to look good?

Your eyes will usually settle arguments faster than the landing pages will.

Real implementation snippets

NinjaPear

curl -X GET \
  "https://nubela.co/api/v1/company/logo?website=https://stripe.com" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY" \
  --output stripe-logo.png

Logo.dev

<img src="https://img.logo.dev/stripe.com?token=YOUR_PUBLIC_TOKEN&size=128" alt="Stripe logo" />

If you are moving off Clearbit-style URLs, that is part of the appeal.

Brandfetch

curl -X GET \
  "https://cdn.brandfetch.io/stripe.com" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY"

If you are seriously evaluating Brandfetch, do not stop at the logo endpoint. Test the broader brand attributes too. That is where the value either shows up or doesn’t.

Cost scenarios

Monthly requests	NinjaPear	Logo.dev Community	Logo.dev Startup	Logo.dev Pro	Brandfetch Logo API
100K	$0	$0 with attribution	$400/year overkill	$1,800/year absurd	$0 under fair use
500K	$0	$0 with attribution	$400/year optional	$1,800/year overkill	$0 under fair use
1M	$0, if 300 req/min fits your traffic shape	Over cap	$400/year	$1,800/year unless you need extras	Likely needs traffic-shape review
5M	$0, if request pattern and caching make sense	Over cap	Over cap	$1,800/year	Likely enterprise discussion
~12.96M equivalent	$0 at published 300 req/min throughput	Over cap	Over cap	Over cap	Over fair-use positioning

This is where overbuying becomes obvious.

Who should use what in 2026

This is simpler than people make it.

Use NinjaPear if...

• You want the cheapest sane answer
• You just need domain -> logo
• PNG is enough
• You do not want attribution clutter
• You are building internal tools, CRMs, alerts, dashboards, or MVPs

Use Logo.dev if...

• You need SVG or theme-aware rendering
• You want the easiest Clearbit replacement path
• Your product team really cares about presentation details
• Those details are actual requirements, not just nice-to-haves

Use Brandfetch if...

• You want brand colors, fonts, symbols, icons, or richer brand context
• Your product is more brand surface than utility surface
• You are doing transaction enrichment or brand-aware UX

Do not overbuy this category

Most teams are overthinking this.

If you need a logo next to a company name, stop shopping like you are licensing a design system. Use the free option that solves the boring problem cleanly. Pay only when your product really needs the extra control.

A practical next step is simple: run the 25-domain benchmark, decide your attribution tolerance, decide your caching plan, and write down what happens if the provider disappears. That hour of work is more useful than another two days of reading landing pages.