Context.dev vs Scrapfly for AI agents
Context.dev and Scrapfly both ran scrape and crawl, 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 and only Context.dev ran map.
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 Scrapfly is too small to rule out chance.
Scrapfly cost 0.61¢ 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 |
| Scrapfly | 53 of 60 (88%) | 80%–90% | 0.61¢ | 5.0 s |
Crawl 10 tasks · Read a whole section of a site and return every record in it.
Scrapfly led this track, but its gap to Context.dev is too small to rule out chance.
Scrapfly cost 2.88¢ per finished task and Context.dev 7.58¢, counting all API and model spend, failures included.
| Provider | Tasks done | 95% interval | Cost per finished task | Median time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scrapfly | 7 of 10 (70%) | 0%–95% | 2.88¢ | 14 s |
| Context.dev | 6 of 10 (60%) | 0%–82% | 7.58¢ | 18 s |
Read these numbers with
- Scrapfly's tuned scrape preset finished 55 of 60, 2 more than its default, but that change is too small to rule out chance.
More
Every provider on each track: scrape, crawl. How a gap is tested: methodology.