Firecrawl alternatives for AI agents, tested on the same tasks
Scrape: Firecrawl finished 15 points fewer tasks than Context.dev, the leader. That gap is big enough to rule out chance. Search: Firecrawl is behind Linkup (93%), but the gap of 7 points is too small to rule out chance. Map: Firecrawl is behind String (93%), but the gap of 7 points is too small to rule out chance. Crawl: Firecrawl tied for the most crawl tasks with Scrapfly.
Context.dev, Spider, Scrapfly, String, Linkup, TinyFish, Browserbase, You.com and Jina Reader ran at least one track alongside Firecrawl, 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 field of the answer. The benchmark tests each provider's gap to its track's leader, so this page says when a gap to Firecrawl is real, when it's too small, and when the two weren't tested head to head.
Exa, Tavily, Bright Data and Perplexity weren't tested, and Apify, Crawl4AI and ZenRows were never part of this benchmark, so this page has no numbers for them.
Scrape 40 tasks · Test heading and structure preservation on documentation pages, plus package versions and JS fields.
| Provider | Tasks done | 95% interval | Cost per finished task | Against Firecrawl |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Firecrawl | 32 of 40 (80%) | 66%–92% | 1.67¢ | Reference |
| Context.dev | 38 of 40 (95%) | 85%–100% | 1.36¢ | More tasks done; the gap rules out chance · compare |
| Spider | 37 of 40 (93%) | 81%–100% | 0.88¢ | Not tested head to head · compare |
| Scrapfly | 36 of 40 (90%) | 79%–100% | 1.17¢ | Not tested head to head · compare |
| String | 35 of 40 (88%) | 76%–97% | 1.33¢ | Not tested head to head · compare |
| Linkup | 34 of 40 (85%) | 71%–96% | 1.23¢ | Not tested head to head · compare |
| TinyFish | 31 of 40 (78%) | 61%–92% | 0.71¢ | Not tested head to head · compare |
| Browserbase | 30 of 40 (75%) | 60%–89% | 1.93¢ | Not tested head to head · compare |
| You.com | 29 of 40 (73%) | 56%–89% | 1.00¢ | Not tested head to head |
| Jina Reader | 6 of 40 (15%) | 5%–26% | 4.26¢ | Not tested head to head · compare |
Firecrawl finished 15 points fewer tasks than Context.dev, the leader. That gap is big enough to rule out chance.
Re-measured from the stored v2 responses; no provider was called again. The agent could read every byte of each response, 32 KB at a time. Page coverage compares each response with a copy of the page fetched once on 2026-10-20; pages that changed since the run are left out. Every provider ran on its default settings. Jina Reader ran under a 5,000-token rejecting budget. Most core tasks ask for a docs heading.
TinyFish (0.71¢), Spider (0.88¢), You.com (1.00¢), Scrapfly (1.17¢), Linkup (1.23¢), String (1.33¢) and Context.dev (1.36¢) cost less per finished scrape task than Firecrawl's 1.67¢, counting API and model spend, failures included.
Search 30 tasks · Find facts, registry versions and documentation headings on the live web.
| Provider | Tasks done | 95% interval | Cost per finished task | Against Firecrawl |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Firecrawl | 26 of 30 (87%) | 71%–97% | 2.91¢ | Reference |
| Linkup | 28 of 30 (93%) | 85%–100% | 2.19¢ | Gap too small to rule out chance · compare |
| TinyFish | 26 of 30 (87%) | 70%–100% | 0.97¢ | Same tasks done · compare |
| Context.dev | 25 of 30 (83%) | 63%–100% | 1.39¢ | Not tested head to head · compare |
| String | 23 of 30 (77%) | 56%–96% | 1.32¢ | Not tested head to head · compare |
| Browserbase | 21 of 30 (70%) | 50%–87% | 2.79¢ | Not tested head to head · compare |
| You.com | 21 of 30 (70%) | 50%–87% | 2.64¢ | Not tested head to head |
Firecrawl is behind Linkup (93%), but the gap of 7 points is too small to rule out chance.
Re-measured from the stored v2 responses; no provider was called again. The agent replay serves the searches the original agent made, in order, and can read every result. Retrieval checks everything the provider returned in the task; install commands and figures reported in millions can pass with the agent and not in retrieval, because the model writes them from what it read.
TinyFish (0.97¢), String (1.32¢), Context.dev (1.39¢), Linkup (2.19¢), You.com (2.64¢) and Browserbase (2.79¢) cost less per finished search task than Firecrawl's 2.91¢, counting API and model spend, failures included.
Map 15 tasks · Discover canonical URLs within a verified documentation scope.
| Provider | Tasks done | 95% interval | Cost per finished task | Against Firecrawl |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Firecrawl | 13 of 15 (87%) | 67%–100% | 1.32¢ | Reference |
| String | 14 of 15 (93%) | 80%–100% | 0.98¢ | Gap too small to rule out chance · compare |
| Context.dev | 12 of 15 (80%) | 60%–100% | 0.98¢ | Not tested head to head · compare |
Firecrawl is behind String (93%), but the gap of 7 points is too small to rule out chance.
Re-measured from the stored v2 responses; no provider was called again. URLs outside the requested section, query-string variants and non-HTML files don't count; the section's own URL always counts, since it was the tool's input.
Context.dev (0.98¢) and String (0.98¢) cost less per finished map task than Firecrawl's 1.32¢, counting API and model spend, failures included.
Crawl 12 tasks · Return every scoped documentation URL and its HTML title.
| Provider | Tasks done | 95% interval | Cost per finished task | Against Firecrawl |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Firecrawl | 12 of 12 (100%) | 100%–100% | 8.29¢ | Reference |
| Scrapfly | 12 of 12 (100%) | 100%–100% | 3.49¢ | Same tasks done · compare |
| Context.dev | 11 of 12 (92%) | 75%–100% | 5.86¢ | Not tested head to head · compare |
Firecrawl tied for the most crawl tasks with Scrapfly.
Re-measured from the stored v2 responses; no provider was called again. A crawl task is done when the agent returns the right pages. Exact page titles are reported separately and don't decide the score.
Scrapfly (3.49¢) and Context.dev (5.86¢) cost less per finished crawl task than Firecrawl's 8.29¢, counting API and model spend, failures included.
Short answers
What is the best Firecrawl alternative for AI agents?
It depends on the job, and on most tracks the data can't separate Firecrawl from the providers around it. On scrape (40 tasks), Firecrawl finished 80%. Firecrawl finished 15 points fewer tasks than Context.dev, the leader. That gap is big enough to rule out chance. On search (30 tasks), Firecrawl finished 87%. Firecrawl is behind Linkup (93%), but the gap of 7 points is too small to rule out chance. On map (15 tasks), Firecrawl finished 87%. Firecrawl is behind String (93%), but the gap of 7 points is too small to rule out chance. On crawl (12 tasks), Firecrawl finished 100%. Firecrawl tied for the most crawl tasks with Scrapfly.
Which Firecrawl alternative costs the least per finished task?
Cost per finished task counts all API and model spend, failures included, divided by tasks done. The cheapest alternative on each track: scrape: TinyFish at 0.71¢, against Firecrawl's 1.67¢; search: TinyFish at 0.97¢, against Firecrawl's 2.91¢; map: Context.dev at 0.98¢, against Firecrawl's 1.32¢; crawl: Scrapfly at 3.49¢, against Firecrawl's 8.29¢.
Were Bright Data, Apify, Crawl4AI, ZenRows, Exa and Tavily tested against Firecrawl?
No. Exa, Tavily, Bright Data and Perplexity weren't tested, and Apify, Crawl4AI and ZenRows were never part of this benchmark, so this page has no numbers for them.
Every Firecrawl head-to-head is on the compare page, Firecrawl's own results are on its provider page, and how a gap is tested is on the methodology page.