scrapingbench

Firecrawl vs Jina Reader for AI agents

Firecrawl 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 Firecrawl ran search, 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
Jina87%0.57¢ per task

Neither gap to the track's leader cleared chance, and the benchmark doesn't test these two against each other, so this 3-point gap isn't a result either can claim.

Jina cost 0.57¢ per finished task and Firecrawl 1.22¢, counting all API and model spend, failures included.

Firecrawl and Jina on scrape
ProviderTasks done95% intervalCost per finished taskMedian time
Firecrawl54 of 60 (90%)90%–90%1.22¢3.3 s
Jina52 of 60 (87%)60%–92%0.57¢3.8 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.
  • 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.