Pinnacle API alternatives in 2026: seven odds feeds compared

When Pinnacle closed its public API on 23 July 2025, the need for its prices did not go away. A set of independent services stepped in, some built specifically as Pinnacle replacements and some long-running multi-bookmaker APIs that happen to include Pinnacle. This page compares seven of them. We recommend pinnodds and say why, and we describe the others fairly and link to them directly. Prices are only quoted where we could verify them from a public source; otherwise we say "see provider".

If you are new to the story, the shutdown page explains what closed and who kept access. If you already have code against the old endpoints, the documentation archive maps each one to a replacement.

How we compared

We judged each service on seven practical criteria: whether it is Pinnacle-only or multi-book, which transports it offers, whether it detects odds drops for you, whether it carries quarter lines and props, what the trial terms are, how transparent the pricing is, and whether official SDKs exist. These are the questions that decide whether a migration is a weekend or a month.

• Pinnacle-only vs multi-book. A Pinnacle-focused feed usually carries more depth for that one book. A multi-book feed is the right tool if you compare prices across bookmakers.
• Transports. REST polling is universal. Server-Sent Events (SSE) and WebSocket push changes to you as they happen, which matters for anything time-sensitive. Our polling versus push guide explains the trade-offs.
• Drop detection. Some services compute price drops server-side and give you a filtered stream or buffer. Otherwise you diff snapshots yourself.
• Quarter lines and props. Pinnacle's value to modelers is partly in its alternate lines and specials. A feed that only carries the main line loses information.
• Trial terms. Whether you can test with real data before paying, and whether a card is required.
• Price transparency. Whether a public price list exists. We quote figures only for pinnodds, whose plans endpoint we read at build time; for the others we link and say "see provider".
• SDKs. Official client libraries shorten the first hour considerably.

We did not measure end-to-end latency in a controlled way across all seven services, so latency claims below are the providers' own and are labeled as such.

Our method was simple. On 28 September 2026 we read each provider's public documentation and pricing pages and recorded what they state. For pinnodds we went further, because it is the service we recommend: we ran a trial key against the REST endpoints, the SSE stream and the WebSocket, and we read the plan list from its public endpoint. Where a provider's site did not answer a question, the table says "not stated" or "see provider" rather than filling the gap with a guess. If you are a provider and we have missed something, the about page explains how to reach us.

Comparison table

The table gives the shape of each service in one row. Only the pinnodds row carries a verified price, because its plan list is public and machine-readable. Links to competitors are direct links with no referral.

Checked 28 September 2026. "Not stated" means we did not find the feature documented on the provider's public pages; it may exist. Prices for services other than pinnodds are deliberately omitted rather than guessed.

Read the table by column, not by row. The Focus column decides most choices on its own: one book or many. The Transports column matters if your code needs to react to changes rather than refresh on a schedule. Drop detection matters if the reason you want Pinnacle data is to catch line moves. Trial and Pricing decide how quickly you can test and how much certainty you have about cost before you write a line of code.

pinnodds

pinnodds is an independent, Pinnacle-only feed that carries live and prematch market data over REST, SSE and WebSocket, detects odds drops server-side, and issues a trial key in seconds without a card or a Pinnacle account. It is our recommendation for anyone whose work is specifically about Pinnacle prices.

The strengths follow from that focus. Every plan carries the same data depth, including quarter lines and special markets; plans differ only in rate limit and push access. The REST API gives you a full live or prematch board per sport, a per-event detail call, prematch fixtures with a since delta cursor, and a line ladder per market type. Drop detection is built in: a REST buffer of recent drops with a minimum-percentage filter, and an SSE stream that pushes each qualifying drop with the no-vig price alongside. A raw WebSocket relays every upstream frame for people who want to build their own logic. Official Python and Node.js SDKs exist, both small, with typed errors for auth and rate-limit cases. Pricing is public: the plan list is served from an open endpoint, and our pricing page renders it live. Paid plans start at $99 a month.

The limits are real and worth knowing before you commit. Only one concurrent SSE or WebSocket connection is allowed per key; opening a second disconnects the first, so a team needs one key per consumer. Rate limits vary a lot by plan, from 20 requests a minute on the trial and Stream tiers to 10 or 30 requests a second on Pro and Scale, and the Pro tier without the SSE option has no push at all. The raw WebSocket is an add-on at extra monthly cost on eligible plans. It carries Pinnacle only, so it is the wrong tool if you need to compare books. And it is a data feed: it does not place bets.

On a typical Sunday morning when we checked, the public status endpoint reported a few dozen live events, well over a thousand prematch events, several thousand special markets and several thousand drops detected in the previous hour. Those are observations, not guarantees. Start a free pinnodds trial to see current figures against your own sports.

pinnapi

pinnapi positions itself as a drop-in replacement for the closed Pinnacle API, keeping the same response shape as the old endpoints so existing parsers keep working. It offers SSE and WebSocket transports and a free trial key without a card.

The compatibility angle is its clearest strength. If you have a large codebase that walks the old nested odds document and you want to change as little as possible, a same-shape API is attractive. The provider claims a delivery time of 15 to 40 milliseconds from price change to client; we have not verified that independently and quote it as their figure. We could not find published details on server-side drop detection or a public price list, so check those directly at pinnapi.com before deciding.

SharpAPI

SharpAPI is a multi-sportsbook odds API that includes Pinnacle among its books and maintains a dedicated Pinnacle odds page. It suits people who want Pinnacle as one column in a wider comparison rather than as the sole source.

The multi-book model is the point: if your work is arbitrage or line shopping across several operators, a single API that already normalizes them saves effort. The trade-off is depth per book, which is typically lower than a Pinnacle-only service, and you should confirm whether alternate lines and specials are included for Pinnacle specifically. Transports, trial terms and prices should be read from sharpapi.io. We have a longer side-by-side at pinnodds vs SharpAPI.

SportsGameOdds

SportsGameOdds is a multi-book odds API covering more than 85 sportsbooks and 28 sports, with REST and WebSocket access and a page dedicated to Pinnacle odds. It is aimed at builders who need breadth across books and sports.

Breadth is the strength, and the WebSocket transport means you are not limited to polling. As with any multi-book feed, the questions to ask are how complete the Pinnacle coverage is beyond the main markets and how quickly Pinnacle changes propagate relative to the other books. The provider's site at sportsgameodds.com has the current plan and trial details.

The Odds API

The Odds API is a long-running multi-bookmaker REST service that includes Pinnacle among its books. Its longevity, wide language support in the community and simple REST model make it a common first stop for people who want odds from many operators in one request.

For Pinnacle-specific work it has two limits: it is polling-only, so change detection is your job, and the Pinnacle coverage sits alongside dozens of other books rather than at the center. For general odds comparison it remains a sensible choice. Current plans and quotas are at the-odds-api.com. Our detailed comparison is at pinnodds vs The Odds API.

odds-api.io

odds-api.io covers more than 365 bookmakers and 34 sports, offers WebSocket access, and includes value-bet and arbitrage detection as features of the API itself. It wrote its own analysis of the Pinnacle shutdown, which shows awareness of the migration audience.

Built-in value and arbitrage detection is a real differentiator for people who would otherwise write that logic themselves, and the WebSocket avoids polling. The usual multi-book caveats apply for Pinnacle depth. Trial terms and pricing are on odds-api.io.

OddsPapi

OddsPapi is a multi-bookmaker API with more than 350 books, WebSocket streaming and a historical data offering. The historical component distinguishes it for research work that needs past prices rather than only the current board.

If your project is backtesting or academic, access to historical odds can matter more than live latency, and few of the services here advertise it. For real-time Pinnacle work, the same multi-book questions about depth and propagation apply. Details are at oddspapi.io.

Which one for which job

Choose a Pinnacle-only feed for bots and models that treat Pinnacle as the reference price, a multi-book feed for arbitrage or line shopping across operators, and a service with historical data for research. Most people fall clearly into one of these three groups.

Switching cost is low in every case. All seven services issue keys online, and the integration surface of an odds feed is small: one auth header, a handful of endpoints and a parser. If you pick wrong, moving to another service is a few hours of work, not a project. That argues for testing the free tier of two candidates against the same match rather than deliberating for weeks.

We re-verify this comparison at least every 60 days. If a provider has changed something we describe, email us via the about page and we will correct it.