Migrating a Zapier or Make automation to a new geocoding host
No-code automations built on a geocoding step need a different migration approach than custom code does. Here is how to handle that switch.
OpenCage vs LocationIQ vs Geoapify: what actually differs
OpenCage, LocationIQ, and Geoapify get grouped together often enough in developer discussions that it is worth being precise about what actually separates them, since the similarities are real but so are the differences that matter for an integration.
All three authenticate with a key sent as a query parameter, which is the most common pattern across smaller and mid-size geocoding providers generally. Where they diverge is in scope and response structure.
OpenCage keeps its focus narrow: geocoding and reverse geocoding, with a response built around a results array and a components object breaking an address into fields like road and city. It blends multiple open data sources under the hood, and its appeal is largely about simplicity and transparency about where the underlying data comes from.
LocationIQ also builds on open geographic data, with a response shape, lat, lon, display_name, and an address object, that will look familiar to anyone who has used OpenStreetMap-derived data directly. It tends to be chosen by teams who want an open-data foundation with a managed API layer on top, without needing to run their own geocoding infrastructure.
Geoapify takes a broader approach, bundling geocoding with routing, places search, and map styling under a single API key and account. Its geocoding response follows a GeoJSON-like features array structure with properties and geometry objects. The bundling is the real differentiator here: a team choosing Geoapify is often making a decision about consolidating several location features under one vendor, not just picking a geocoder.
For a team evaluating any of these three, or migrating away from one of them, the structural question worth answering first is whether you need just geocoding (OpenCage or LocationIQ both fit that narrower need) or a wider set of location features under one account (which is closer to what Geoapify is built for).
My Geocode runs compatibility hosts for all three: OpenCage's results and components structure at /compatibility/opencage/, LocationIQ's lat, lon, and display_name fields at /compatibility/locationiq/, and Geoapify's features array at /compatibility/geoapify/. Each reproduces its provider's exact shape except for the copyright, terms, and privacy text, which means a team currently split across two of these three, or evaluating a consolidation, can test each shape against the same platform without three separate accounts.
Authentication across all three compatibility hosts accepts an X-API-Key header, Authorization: Bearer, HTTP Basic auth, or a query parameter. Pricing is identical regardless of which shape you use: 2,500 free requests a day with no key, 2,500 more free per key per day counted per network, then prepaid credit at €0.0001 per request or an Unlimited key at €50 a month, with every endpoint priced the same.