Firecrawl vs Context.dev for AI agents
Firecrawl and Context.dev both ran scrape, search, map 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.
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 Firecrawl is too small to rule out chance.
Context.dev cost 0.72¢ per finished task and Firecrawl 1.22¢, 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 |
| Firecrawl | 54 of 60 (90%) | 90%–90% | 1.22¢ | 3.3 s |
Search 60 tasks · Find a fact on the live web: a package's latest version, a filing figure, a release date.
Firecrawl led this track, but its gap to Context.dev is too small to rule out chance.
Context.dev cost 1.82¢ per finished task and Firecrawl 3.04¢, counting all API and model spend, failures included.
| Provider | Tasks done | 95% interval | Cost per finished task | Median time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Firecrawl | 51 of 60 (85%) | 69%–100% | 3.04¢ | 11 s |
| Context.dev | 45 of 60 (75%) | 52%–96% | 1.82¢ | 5.2 s |
Map 15 tasks · List every URL in a section of a site nobody has indexed yet.
Context.dev led this track, but its gap to Firecrawl is too small to rule out chance.
Context.dev cost 1.84¢ per finished task and Firecrawl 3.35¢, counting all API and model spend, failures included.
| Provider | Tasks done | 95% interval | Cost per finished task | Median time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Context.dev | 7 of 15 (47%) | 11%–100% | 1.84¢ | 6.1 s |
| Firecrawl | 6 of 15 (40%) | 11%–100% | 3.35¢ | 11 s |
Crawl 10 tasks · Read a whole section of a site and return every record in it.
Neither gap to the track's leader cleared chance, and the benchmark doesn't test these two against each other, so this 10-point gap isn't a result either can claim. Firecrawl's interval runs 0%–68% and Context.dev's interval runs 0%–82%, because whole sites are resampled and this track has few of them.
Context.dev cost 7.58¢ per finished task and Firecrawl 14.2¢, counting all API and model spend, failures included.
| Provider | Tasks done | 95% interval | Cost per finished task | Median time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Context.dev | 6 of 10 (60%) | 0%–82% | 7.58¢ | 18 s |
| Firecrawl | 5 of 10 (50%) | 0%–68% | 14.2¢ | 60 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.
- Firecrawl's crawl time includes waiting out its free plan's rate limit: its crawls were spaced 65 seconds apart to stay under it.
- 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.
More
Every provider on each track: scrape, search, map, crawl. How a gap is tested: methodology.