Entylink
Entylink vs Companies House API

Entylink vs Companies House API for production UK registry workflows

Compare Entylink with the official Companies House API when deciding between the raw source and a self-serve, developer-first product layer for UK company search, verification, and monitoring.

entylink vs companies house apicompanies house api alternativecompanies house api wrapperuk company api comparison
Decision notes
Source
Companies House
The underlying UK registry remains the source of truth
Onboarding
Self-serve
Dashboard signup and API access without a sales process
Monitoring
Webhooks
Built-in change delivery rather than a raw stream project
Decision framing

Compare the workflow fit, not just the logo

Choose Entylink if

Choose Entylink when you want structured endpoints, self-serve onboarding, clearer commercial packaging, and webhook-based monitoring on top of UK registry data.

Consider Companies House API if

Choose the Companies House API directly when your team explicitly wants the raw official interface and is comfortable owning the integration and monitoring burden internally.

Credibility note

This is a workflow-fit comparison, not a source-of-truth comparison. Companies House remains the underlying source. The real decision is how much infrastructure and product friction you want to own yourself.

Evaluation criteria
CriterionEntylinkCompanies House API
Source modelProductized layer built on Companies House-backed registry workflowsThe official raw source interface
Developer onboardingSelf-serve account, pricing page, docs, and API-first marketing surfaceDirect official integration path with the raw developer surface
Search and entity traversalSearch, company, officers, PSCs, filings, and monitoring packaged as one workflowYou own how search, entity traversal, and downstream flow composition work in your app
MonitoringWebhook workflow is part of the product categoryYou need to own change detection and operational delivery strategy
Commercial fitCloser fit for teams that want a product they can adopt immediatelyCloser fit for teams intentionally building and maintaining the stack themselves
Best-fit scenarios

Where the decision usually gets made

Entylink is strongest when
Teams shipping UK business verification and onboarding workflows quickly
Developers who want search, entity data, and monitoring in one coherent API surface
Operators who need a self-serve commercial path instead of internal build ownership
Companies House API may fit better when
Teams that explicitly prefer to build every workflow directly on the official raw source
Internal platforms that already own their own search, caching, and monitoring layers
Engineering-heavy teams optimizing for direct-source control over productized DX
Implementation

Translate the buying decision into a real workflow

Migration shapeSearch → company → related entities → monitoring
Decision flow
1. Search company with GET /v1/search?q=revolut
2. Retrieve company with GET /v1/company/08804411
3. Expand to officers, PSCs, and filings
4. Create webhooks for approved companies
The core tradeoff is whether your team wants to own this workflow composition itself or consume it as a productized developer surface.
Buying questions

Questions worth answering before procurement

01

Do we want to own the monitoring and change-delivery layer ourselves?

02

Are we trying to move fast with a self-serve API, or deliberately build on the raw official interface?

03

Do compliance and onboarding teams need a workflow-ready API rather than a low-level integration project?

FAQ

Questions that help the buyer decide

Is Entylink replacing Companies House as the source?

No. Companies House remains the source of truth. Entylink sits above that source as a developer-first product layer for production workflows.

When is the official API enough on its own?

When your team is happy owning the integration complexity and does not need a more productized self-serve workflow around search, traversal, and monitoring.

Why does this page matter commercially?

Because this is one of the clearest build-versus-buy decisions in the category, and the searcher is already close to implementation and procurement.