Comparison
BoaviztAPI vs Cloud Carbon Footprint
BoaviztAPI vs Cloud Carbon Footprint: Open API for assessing the environmental impacts of servers, cloud instances and ICT equipment. Open-source tool…
| Field | BoaviztAPI Open API for assessing the environmental impacts of servers, cloud instances and ICT equipment. | Cloud Carbon Footprint Open-source tool for measuring and reducing cloud emissions across AWS, Azure and Google Cloud. |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Free | Free |
| Pricing published | Public pricing | Public pricing |
| Starting price | Free | Free |
| Licensing | Open source | Open source |
| Pricing details | AGPL-3.0; the README points to a public demo API, and the API can be run locally with Docker or installed with pip. | Free and open source; the project is sponsored by Thoughtworks under the Apache License, Version 2.0. |
| Free tier | Yes | Yes |
| Assets covered | ||
| Platforms | API, Web | Cloud, On-premise |
| Region support | Global | Global |
| Compliance | Not stated | Not stated |
| API available | Yes | No |
| Last verified | 2026-10-22 | 2026-10-22 |
Editor's take on BoaviztAPI
Built for engineers and analysts who need component-level embedded and usage impacts for servers, cloud instances, CPUs, GPUs and storage, and who are comfortable calling an HTTP API from their own tooling. The trade-off is integration and obligation: it returns modelled impacts from published methodologies rather than measured emissions, so results are only as current as its data sources, and AGPL-3.0 licensing shapes how derived services can be offered. A public demo API speeds evaluation, while production use means hosting it and keeping methodology and data updated; teams wanting a ready reporting interface should pair it with a frontend such as Datavizta.
Read the BoaviztAPI listingEditor's take on Cloud Carbon Footprint
Fits engineering teams that already run cost or billing pipelines for AWS, Google Cloud and Azure and want energy and emissions estimates, including embodied emissions, derived from that same billing data. The trade-off is operational: the project is self-hosted, so someone must run the dashboard and keep its provider data current, and results follow the billing exports and documented methodology rather than live provider APIs. Teams without self-hosting capacity, or needing assurance-grade audit trails, should treat it as a complement to a managed reporting platform.
Read the Cloud Carbon Footprint listingJudgement is written by the editor. Paid placements never change the ranking or the recorded field values.
All comparisons