scrapingbench

Browserbase for AI agents: benchmark results

Browserbase (browser infrastructure) was tested on scrape and search, not on map and crawl. It got the same tasks, the same model (Claude Haiku 5.5), the same prompt and the same limits as every other provider, and a script checked every answer. Browserbase here means its HTTP Fetch and Search APIs, not its browser sessions.

Browserbase website

Scrape 60 tasks · Read one page and pull out exact fields: prices, versions, install commands.

Tasks done
82%
49 of 60
95% interval
78%–100%
Cost per finished task
1.12¢
Median time
3.3 s

7th of 8 on tasks done. Browserbase is behind Context.dev (92%), but the gap of 10 points is too small to rule out chance.

Raw output, no model: the API's own response held every answer on 37 of 55 applicable tasks (67%), at 0.65¢ of API spend per finished task.

Scrape results, Browserbase highlighted
ProviderTasks done95% intervalCost per finished taskMedian time
Context.dev55 of 60 (92%)90%–100%0.72¢3.7 s
Linkup54 of 60 (90%)90%–90%0.60¢3.4 s
Firecrawl54 of 60 (90%)90%–90%1.22¢3.3 s
TinyFish54 of 60 (90%)80%–92%0.43¢3.5 s
Scrapfly53 of 60 (88%)80%–90%0.61¢5.0 s
Jina52 of 60 (87%)60%–92%0.57¢3.8 s
Browserbase49 of 60 (82%)78%–100%1.12¢3.3 s
Spider12 of 60 (20%)4%–100%2.48¢4.6 s

All scrape results and charts

Read these numbers with

  • Its Search responses carried useful URLs and titles but blank snippets, which limits how many facts the model could answer from them.

Browserbase compared

Other providers