Is it true that the various hyperbolic $n$-spaces $\mathbb{H}^n$ are not quasi-isometric to one another? How to see this?
For a hot minute, I thought that the free group $F_n$ was quasi-isometric to $\mathbb{H}^n$ which would imply (since any two regular trees are quasi-isometric) that $\mathbb{H}^n \approx F_n \approx F_m \approx \mathbb{H}^m$, but in hindsight I don't have a good reason to think $F_n$ has anything to do with $\mathbb{H}^n$.
A helpful invariant for $\delta$-hyperbolic spaces is Gromov boundary: that is quasi-isometry of hyperbolic spaces induce homeomorphisms on the boundary, so if they have different homeomorphism types of boundary then they are not quasi-isometric. The boundary can be thought of as equivalence classes of rays, where rays are equivalent if they eventually stay within bounded distance from each other. From that definition it is clear that boundary of $\delta$-hyperbolic spaces agrees with the standard boundary you would put on Hyperbolic $n$-space.
Hyperbolic $n$-space (defined for $n>1$) has $S^{n-1}$ as the Gromov boundary, and you can tell spheres apart by a homology argument if you don't trust different dimensional spheres are not homeomorphic. So they are not quasi-isometric to each other.
Is not to hard to see that finitely generated free groups, on 2 or more generators, will have a Cantor set as it's boundary, which is not homeomorphic to spheres (it isn't even connected), so free groups are not quasi-isometric to any hyperbolic $n$-spaces.
As discussed in the comments, you could think of the real line as 1-dimentional hyperbolic space, in which case the free cyclic group is quasi isometric to 1-dimentional hyperbolic space. Note the free cyclic group you have 2 points in the boundary, which is a zero sphere and is note homeomorphic to the cantor set or higher spheres, so it is not quasi-isometric to other free groups.