Firecrawl vs TinyFish for AI agents
Firecrawl and TinyFish 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.
They finished the same number of tasks.
TinyFish cost 0.43¢ per finished task and Firecrawl 1.22¢, counting all API and model spend, failures included.
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 TinyFish is too small to rule out chance.
TinyFish cost 1.31¢ per finished task and Firecrawl 3.04¢, counting all API and model spend, failures included.
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.
- TinyFish here means its Fetch API for scrape and its Search API for search.
- TinyFish wasn't given a tuned run: its plan offered no affordable alternate preset.
More
Every provider on each track: scrape, search. How a gap is tested: methodology.