Context.dev vs Jina Reader for AI agents
Context.dev and Jina Reader both ran scrape, with the same tasks, the same model (Claude Haiku 5.5), the same prompt and the same limits. A task counts only when a script confirms every answer. Beyond that, only Context.dev ran search, only Context.dev ran map and only Context.dev ran crawl.
The benchmark tests each provider's gap to its track's leader, with 95% intervals from resampling whole sites. It doesn't test every pair directly, so this page says when a gap is real and when it isn't one anybody can claim.
Scrape 60 tasks · Read one page and pull out exact fields: prices, versions, install commands.
Context.dev led this track, but its gap to Jina is too small to rule out chance.
Jina cost 0.57¢ per finished task and Context.dev 0.72¢, counting all API and model spend, failures included.
| Provider | Tasks done | 95% interval | Cost per finished task | Median time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Context.dev | 55 of 60 (92%) | 90%–100% | 0.72¢ | 3.7 s |
| Jina | 52 of 60 (87%) | 60%–92% | 0.57¢ | 3.8 s |
Read these numbers with
- Jina here means Jina Reader (r.jina.ai), scored on scrape only. An earlier 7-task Jina Search run is kept as historical evidence and isn't part of these scores.
More
Every provider on each track: scrape. How a gap is tested: methodology.