scrapingbench

TinyFish vs Browserbase for AI agents

TinyFish 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.

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.

TinyFish90%0.43¢ 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.

TinyFish cost 0.43¢ per finished task and Browserbase 1.12¢, counting all API and model spend, failures included.

TinyFish and Browserbase on scrape
ProviderTasks done95% intervalCost per finished taskMedian time
TinyFish54 of 60 (90%)80%–92%0.43¢3.5 s
Browserbase49 of 60 (82%)78%–100%1.12¢3.3 s

Read these numbers with

  • 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.
  • 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