Firecrawl for AI agents: benchmark results
Firecrawl (content API) was tested on scrape, search, 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.
Scrape 60 tasks · Read one page and pull out exact fields: prices, versions, install commands.
- Tasks done
- 90%
- 54 of 60
- 95% interval
- 90%–90%
- Cost per finished task
- 1.22¢
- Median time
- 3.3 s
2nd of 8 on tasks done, tied with 2 others. Firecrawl is behind Context.dev (92%), but the gap of 2 points is too small to rule out chance.
Raw output, no model: the API's own response held every answer on 51 of 55 applicable tasks (93%), at 0.80¢ of API spend per finished task.
Tuned settings, frozen before the run: 49 of 60 (82%), against 90% with defaults.
| Provider | Tasks done | 95% interval | Cost per finished task | Median time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Context.dev | 55 of 60 (92%) | 90%–100% | 0.72¢ | 3.7 s |
| Linkup | 54 of 60 (90%) | 90%–90% | 0.60¢ | 3.4 s |
| Firecrawl | 54 of 60 (90%) | 90%–90% | 1.22¢ | 3.3 s |
| TinyFish | 54 of 60 (90%) | 80%–92% | 0.43¢ | 3.5 s |
| Scrapfly | 53 of 60 (88%) | 80%–90% | 0.61¢ | 5.0 s |
| Jina | 52 of 60 (87%) | 60%–92% | 0.57¢ | 3.8 s |
| Browserbase | 49 of 60 (82%) | 78%–100% | 1.12¢ | 3.3 s |
| Spider | 12 of 60 (20%) | 4%–100% | 2.48¢ | 4.6 s |
Search 60 tasks · Find a fact on the live web: a package's latest version, a filing figure, a release date.
- Tasks done
- 85%
- 51 of 60
- 95% interval
- 69%–100%
- Cost per finished task
- 3.04¢
- Median time
- 11 s
1st of 5 on tasks done. Firecrawl finished the most search tasks, but its lead over Linkup (83%) is too small to rule out chance.
Raw output, no model: the API's own response held every answer on 25 of 53 applicable tasks (47%), at 2.40¢ of API spend per finished task.
| Provider | Tasks done | 95% interval | Cost per finished task | Median time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Firecrawl | 51 of 60 (85%) | 69%–100% | 3.04¢ | 11 s |
| Linkup | 50 of 60 (83%) | 65%–97% | 2.55¢ | 5.3 s |
| Context.dev | 45 of 60 (75%) | 52%–96% | 1.82¢ | 5.2 s |
| TinyFish | 44 of 60 (73%) | 47%–96% | 1.31¢ | 5.3 s |
| Browserbase | 23 of 60 (38%) | 21%–59% | 5.97¢ | 12 s |
Map 15 tasks · List every URL in a section of a site nobody has indexed yet.
- Tasks done
- 40%
- 6 of 15
- 95% interval
- 11%–100%
- Cost per finished task
- 3.35¢
- Median time
- 11 s
2nd of 2 on tasks done. Firecrawl is behind Context.dev (47%), but the gap of 7 points is too small to rule out chance.
Raw output, no model: the API's own response held every answer on 3 of 15 applicable tasks (20%), at 2.50¢ of API spend per finished task.
| Provider | Tasks done | 95% interval | Cost per finished task | Median time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Context.dev | 7 of 15 (47%) | 11%–100% | 1.84¢ | 6.1 s |
| Firecrawl | 6 of 15 (40%) | 11%–100% | 3.35¢ | 11 s |
Crawl 10 tasks · Read a whole section of a site and return every record in it.
- Tasks done
- 50%
- 5 of 10
- 95% interval
- 0%–68%
- Cost per finished task
- 14.2¢
- Median time
- 60 s
3rd of 3 on tasks done. Firecrawl is behind Scrapfly (70%), but the gap of 20 points is too small to rule out chance.
| Provider | Tasks done | 95% interval | Cost per finished task | Median time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scrapfly | 7 of 10 (70%) | 0%–95% | 2.88¢ | 14 s |
| Context.dev | 6 of 10 (60%) | 0%–82% | 7.58¢ | 18 s |
| Firecrawl | 5 of 10 (50%) | 0%–68% | 14.2¢ | 60 s |
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.
- Firecrawl's crawl time includes waiting out its free plan's rate limit: its crawls were spaced 65 seconds apart to stay under it.
- 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.
Firecrawl compared
- Firecrawl vs Context.dev scrape, search, map and crawl, compared with Context.dev
- Firecrawl vs Jina scrape, compared with Jina
- Firecrawl vs Linkup scrape and search, compared with Linkup
- Firecrawl vs TinyFish scrape and search, compared with TinyFish
- Firecrawl vs Scrapfly scrape and crawl, compared with Scrapfly
- Firecrawl vs Spider scrape, compared with Spider
- Firecrawl vs Browserbase scrape and search, compared with Browserbase