scrapingbench

Firecrawl vs Browserbase for AI agents

Firecrawl and Browserbase both ran scrape and search, 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 Firecrawl ran map and only Firecrawl 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.

Firecrawl90%1.22¢ per task
Browserbase82%1.12¢ per task

Neither gap to the track's leader cleared chance, and the benchmark doesn't test these two against each other, so this 8-point gap isn't a result either can claim.

Browserbase cost 1.12¢ per finished task and Firecrawl 1.22¢, counting all API and model spend, failures included.

Firecrawl and Browserbase on scrape
ProviderTasks done95% intervalCost per finished taskMedian time
Firecrawl54 of 60 (90%)90%–90%1.22¢3.3 s
Browserbase49 of 60 (82%)78%–100%1.12¢3.3 s

Read these numbers with

  • Everything ran on free plans. Firecrawl's free plan allows 10 requests a minute, so its tuned scrape run hit rate limits and scored lower than its default.
  • On search, 5 of the 60 tasks have two defensible answers. Accepting both moves Firecrawl to 92% at most and changes no provider's place.
  • Browserbase here means its HTTP Fetch and Search APIs, not its browser sessions.
  • Its Search responses carried useful URLs and titles but blank snippets, which limits how many facts the model could answer from them.

More