Perhaps WFT is waiting for UAH v6 to come out of beta, and if so I can't blame them. Frankly I think UAH should not even have introduced a beta version of version 6, except internally, but should have done like NOAA with the Karl et al Science paper of 2015, when the data were released in a set version and published when the paper itself was published. UAH says their paper is still in peer review.
Anyway, here is a comparison between UAH LT v6beta6 and GISS. I've adjusted the GISS anomalies to have the same baseline as UAH, 1981-2010, and smoothed the data with a 12-month moving average. The results look significantly different (any thoughts why?):