scrapingbench

String vs Context.dev for AI agents

String and Context.dev both ran scrape, search and map, 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 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 40 tasks · Test heading and structure preservation on documentation pages, plus package versions and JS fields.

Context.dev95%1.36¢ per task
String88%1.33¢ per task

Context.dev led this track, but its gap to String is too small to rule out chance.

String cost 1.33¢ per finished task and Context.dev 1.36¢, counting all API and model spend, failures included.

String and Context.dev on scrape
ProviderTasks done95% intervalCost per finished taskMedian time
Context.dev38 of 40 (95%)85%–100%1.36¢4.6 s
String35 of 40 (88%)76%–97%1.33¢3.9 s

Map 15 tasks · Discover canonical URLs within a verified documentation scope.

String93%0.98¢ per task
Context.dev80%0.98¢ per task

String led this track, but its gap to Context.dev is too small to rule out chance.

Context.dev cost 0.98¢ per finished task and String 0.98¢, counting all API and model spend, failures included.

String and Context.dev on map
ProviderTasks done95% intervalCost per finished taskMedian time
String14 of 15 (93%)80%–100%0.98¢8.4 s
Context.dev12 of 15 (80%)60%–100%0.98¢6.4 s

More