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

The wrong company logo api choice looks cheap on day one, then quietly ends up in your onboarding flow, CRM rows, alerts, emails, and dashboards, right before the provider changes terms or disappears.

That is why this category is more annoying than it looks. The question is not just which logo API works. The question is which one you can ship this week without creating dumb migration debt six months from now.

I’ve bought enough small infrastructure tools to know how this goes. When I was running FluxoMetric, the painful pattern was always the same: a tiny utility looked harmless, then it spread across the product, then it became a real bill or a real dependency. A company logo api is exactly that kind of trap.

TL;DR

If you are in a rush, use this:

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

TL;DR summary comparison table

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

Summary comparison table with star ratings

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

This category gets overcomplicated fast.

If your product needs to display a company logo, you usually do not need “brand intelligence.” You need an endpoint that works, does not clutter your UI with attribution, and will not become a migration headache later.

My bias, upfront

I am biased toward boring infrastructure. Good. Boring infrastructure is usually the right answer.

At FluxoMetric, I spent too much money on small tools that looked harmless. A few hundred bucks here. A few hundred there. Six months later, it was a stupid SaaS bill for things we barely touched. A company logo api is tailor-made for that mistake.

The only 5 things that actually matter

Ignore the landing page gloss. I would score these five things:

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

That’s it.

If a vendor page spends more time showing pretty logos than explaining limits, terms, and output formats, I get suspicious.

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

Here is the blunt version.

My blunt 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 Clearbit replacement path.
• 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.

For most buyers, the answer is still NinjaPear. Not because it has the richest feature set. Because it does not try to sell you a richer feature set than you need.

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

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 requests per minute, no monthly fees, no attribution links”
Logo.dev Community	$0/year	500,000 requests/month	500,000/month	Required	Logos via API, stronger frontend controls	Good free tier if you can tolerate attribution
Logo.dev Startup	$400/year	1M requests/month	1,000,000/month	Removed	Production use	Public pricing currently shows $400/year
Logo.dev Pro	$1,800/year	5M requests/month	5,000,000/month	Removed	More support, caching, QA	Public pricing currently shows $1,800/year
Brandfetch Logo API	Free forever	Fair use, 500,000 requests/month soft limit	500,000/month soft limit	No public attribution requirement on logo pricing page	Free logo embedding, richer ecosystem around it	Throughput 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	Don’t do this to yourself

That NinjaPear number matters more than people think. 300 requests/minute works out to ~12.96M requests/month if you annualize it over a 30-day month. That is well above Logo.dev’s public 500K, 1M, and 5M plan caps.

Now, be an adult about this. Monthly-equivalent math is not the same thing as a contractual monthly allowance. Burst limits and monthly caps are different constraints. But if you want a raw contrast table, the contrast is brutal.

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

What those limits actually 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 very 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 not sophistication. That is waste.
• Brandfetch is impressive, but once you care about fonts, symbols, icons, and colors, you are solving a broader brand-data problem, not just a logo problem.

That last point matters. A lot.

Why Clearbit’s shutdown changed this entire company logo api category

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 notifications. Suddenly that “small utility” is real infrastructure.

A logo API is trivial until it becomes infrastructure

I have seen this happen more than once.

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

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

The cautionary screenshot every buyer should see

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

And here is the line that matters:

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

That one sentence explains the whole trust problem in this category.

If you had Clearbit wired into your product, the shutdown was not an abstract risk. It was a very real pain in the ass.

That quote is useful context. It also does not mean every team should pay for the replacement.

NinjaPear review: the free default I’d start with

I lead GTM at NinjaPear, so yes, I have a point of view here. I am not pretending otherwise.

What I like

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

The public page is plain about the offer:

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

That is a good product decision because it stays in its lane.

The request shape is also simple:

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 minutes.

What I don’t like

It is not trying to be a rich brand asset platform. That is good for focus, but it is still a limit.

If you need SVG, multiple themes, symbols, or deeper asset control, this is not the same class of tool. It is a blunt instrument, and I mean that as praise.

Best for

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

My honest take

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

And yes, I think the 300 req/min versus Logo.dev’s 500K, 1M, and 5M monthly caps is a bigger selling point than most buyers realize. For simple logo jobs, that volume headroom is kind of ridiculous for a free tool.

Logo.dev review: excellent, but most teams are buying polish they don’t need

I like Logo.dev. I just do not think every buyer needs to pay for it.

What I like

Logo.dev has clear product focus. It also has the most obvious migration path after Clearbit’s shutdown.

Its 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

That is real value if your frontend team actually cares about rendering details.

What I don’t like

The free plan requiring attribution is annoying.

I’ll say it plainly: if I have to add your attribution to my public UI to keep free access, that is not free. That is visual debt. Their docs are explicit that the attribution link must be on a public production site and pass referrer data. For apps behind login, they suggest putting it on a public marketing page or about page.

That is a reasonable trade from their side. It is still a trade.

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

Best for

• Teams migrating from Clearbit and wanting the least-friction replacement
• Customer-facing SaaS where SVG or theme control truly matters
• Products where polish is part of the product value

My honest take

Logo.dev is good. I just think a lot of teams buying it are solving a $0 problem with a $400 to $1,800 answer.

Brandfetch review: rich as hell, but often overkill for simple logo use cases

Brandfetch solves a broader problem than many buyers think.

What I like

Brandfetch is stronger when logos are only one part of the job.

Their pricing page positions the free Logo API as the easy way to embed logos in your app, while the broader product gives you access to much deeper brand attributes. Their docs publish concrete limits too: 500,000 requests per month as a fair-use soft limit, plus 1,000 requests every 5 minutes per IP and 2,400 requests every 5 minutes per customer.

That specificity is useful.

What I don’t like

The deeper you go into Brandfetch, the clearer it becomes this is not just a logo utility.

That is fine if you need it. It is overkill if you do not.

If your product only needs a logo next to a company name, the ROI gets muddy fast.

Best for

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

My honest take

If all you need is a logo, Brandfetch can feel like bringing a marching band to a two-person meeting.

The buying criteria most pages gloss over

This is the section I wish more comparison pages wrote honestly.

Attribution is not a footnote

For some teams, attribution is fine.

For others, it is product debt. If you are building customer-facing software and care about a clean UI, “free with attribution” is not free. You are paying with clutter and exceptions.

Monthly caps vs burst throughput

People mix these up all the time.

• Monthly caps matter for embedded dashboards, account lists, and repeated daily usage.
• Throughput limits matter for imports, backfills, and bursty jobs.

NinjaPear publishes 300 req/min. That is ~12.96M requests/month if you convert the rate into a 30-day equivalent. Brandfetch publishes 500K/month fair use, plus 1,000 per 5 min per IP and 2,400 per 5 min per customer. Logo.dev pricing is mostly framed around 500K, 1M, and 5M monthly request caps.

Those are different constraints. Read them that way.

Caching policy is half the product

Ask these questions before you integrate anything:

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

People treat caching like fine print. It is not. It is half the economics.

Migration risk is real

Clearbit proved this category can go from “freebie” to roadmap debt fast.

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

Hands-on benchmark plan and proprietary proof

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

What I can do is give you a benchmark plan that your team can run in an afternoon.

25-domain benchmark sheet

Here is the test set I would use across mainstream SaaS, public companies, fintechs, obscure startups, and annoying edge cases:

#	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

If I were handing this to an engineer, I would also add cacheability and rate-limit behavior under concurrency.

Side-by-side output gallery

You do not need marketing copy when your eyes can do the work.

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?

That gallery will cut through a lot of nonsense.

Real implementation snippets

Here are the minimum viable integrations.

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 migrating from 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 evaluating Brandfetch seriously, do not stop at the logo endpoint. Test the broader brand attributes too. That is where the value either becomes obvious or unnecessary.

Cost scenario table

This is where overbuying gets obvious.

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 overkill unless you need extras	Likely needs discussion if traffic shape is bursty
5M	$0, if request pattern and caching make sense	Over cap	Over cap	$1,800/year	Likely enterprise conversation
~12.96M equivalent	$0 at published 300 req/min throughput	Over cap	Over cap	Over cap	Over fair-use positioning

If the use case is simple, the cost delta gets hard to justify very quickly.

Who should use what in 2026

This part is simpler than people make it.

Use NinjaPear if...

• You want the cheapest sane answer
• You just need domain -> logo
• PNG is enough
• You hate 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 smoothest Clearbit replacement path
• Your product team genuinely cares about polish
• Those frontend details are real requirements, not nice-to-have fantasies

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 do something dumb just because a landing page looked pretty

Most teams are overthinking this.

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

If you want the default answer, here it is one last time: start with NinjaPear for a boring company logo api use case, move to Logo.dev only when SVG, theme variants, or Clearbit migration pressure are real, and use Brandfetch when logos are just one part of a larger brand-data job.

Then do one disciplined thing before you ship: run the 25-domain benchmark above and write down where caching, attribution, and burst limits will bite you. That hour of honesty will save you months of avoidable migration debt.