Head to head · Scraping · October 2026 research run
Context.dev vs fastCRW
Context.dev scores 75.7 (BB) on agent readiness against fastCRW's 64.3 (B), and leads in 5 of 7 scored categories. fastCRW leads on maintenance & community. Both do scraping.
Best web scraping and crawling APIs for AI agents · All 501 scrapers comparisons
Which one, for what
Context.dev BB
Best for Agents that need one call for Markdown, screenshots and schema-shaped JSON from a page, plus batches, monitors and search on the same balance, and teams that also want brand data.
Ahead on
- Reliability, 67 against 50
- Schema & documentation, 96 against 91
- Security & auth, 83 against 40
- Payments & pricing, 50 against 35
- Transparency & trust, 78 against 60
Also in its favour
- Agent-ready, a grade of BB or better
Watch for
The terms let Context.dev train its models on submitted URLs, prompts and returned results unless a separate no-training or ZDR agreement applies
fastCRW B
Best for Agents that want Firecrawl-style scrape, crawl, map, search and extract at lower per-page cost, or a small self-hosted engine.
Ahead on
- Maintenance & community, 93 against 85
Also in its favour
- Runs on your own machine
- Open source
- No incidents deducted, where Context.dev loses 3 points for them
Watch for
The status page shows a live check and an uptime objective but no incident history
Why the edge
Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.
Security & auth Context.dev +43
Context.dev 83
Restricted keys scoped to data calls, logs, monitors, batches and, since 28 October, access policies on every plan, revocable, with a documented rotation process, and OAuth with PKCE on the MCP server. The docs say never to put a key in a URL and no query-string option was found (30). Read-only scopes for logs, monitors and batches, and the MCP guide, re-read on 1 November, asks clients to keep approvals on for tools that start work or change state. Access policies (28 October) can limit which domains requests reach, per key or account, but are enabled per organisation on request. MCP tool annotations couldn't be checked (15 of 20). The MCP guide, agent quickstart and agent-context guide say to treat page content as untrusted data that can't authorise tool calls. No filter or classifier found (10 of 15). Request logs with retained input and response for up to a year, a Logs API, per-key usage and X-Credits-Used (15). SOC 2 Type II since 18 September 2026 per the changelog, and the trust centre on 1 November shows SOC 2 Type 2 and Type 1 as compliant, and a valid security.txt to 26 September 2027 that points to the support address. No disclosure policy or bug bounty found (13 of 20). 30 + 15 + 10 + 15 + 13 = 83.
fastCRW 40
The hosted MCP server publishes RFC 9728 metadata naming its own authorisation server, with PKCE S256, dynamic client registration and one scope, mcp:tools, and the API takes revocable Bearer keys from the dashboard. No key scopes or second scope found (22). The authentication page documents fastcrw.com/mcp/<API_KEY> as a way in, a key in the URL path, so less 10 (12 of 30). Tools mostly read, and data-source calls check approvals, but there is no read-only key or confirmation step for monitors (8 of 20). Managed LLM extraction, summaries and answers wrap scraped text in a nonce fence (crates/crw-extract/src/untrusted.rs), and the hardening guide treats pages as untrusted, but the MCP docs give agents no guidance on scraped content (7 of 15). Each response reports creditsUsed; no per-call log in the docs (5 of 15). SECURITY.md names security@fastcrw.com and GitHub private reporting with a 48-hour acknowledgement, and CI runs CodeQL and OpenSSF Scorecard. security.txt answers 404, and no bounty or certification found (8 of 20). 12 + 8 + 7 + 5 + 8 = 40.
Transparency & trust Context.dev +18
Context.dev 78
Closed service. SDKs and CLI are Apache-2.0, the MCP server is closed. Terms last updated 26 October 2026 under Delaware law now say automated access is expected, that software calling the API is never by itself a violation, and that benchmarking is allowed, so the bar on bots and scripts that cost 2 points on 17 October is gone (15 of 30, up from 13). Privacy policy (31 October 2026) and terms agree that requests and results may be used to train models unless a request uses zero data retention or another agreement applies. The docs keep request logs up to a year and batch results 180 days, the DPA (29 October 2026) returns or deletes data within 10 business days of the end of service, but the privacy policy keeps API request logs as long as needed and gives no fixed periods (18 of 30). A stated 90-day minimum for deprecated surfaces and dated changelog notices (20). The website sub-processor list, last updated 31 October 2026, names 15 with each location and purpose and promises 14 days' notice of changes, and it now agrees with the trust centre, which also lists 15 and names Cloudflare among them, where on 17 October the two lists disagreed (20, up from 14). 15 + 18 + 20 + 20 = 73.
fastCRW 60
The engine and MCP server are AGPL-3.0 and the SDKs MIT, while the hosted control plane is closed under terms that name no legal entity (25 of 30). The terms say crawled data is handled transiently with zero data retention for approved accounts, but the privacy policy is undated, names no controller, gives no retention periods and mentions no DPA (10 of 30). The CHANGELOG flags breaking changes, deprecated v2 extract routes return a warning on every response, and the October 2026 402 change is dated in the docs, with no standing notice policy (10 of 20). Local data-source telemetry is disclosed with an opt-out. The privacy policy names Stripe, Google Analytics, Google Ads and an X pixel, but infrastructure and search providers are unnamed and no data location is given (8 of 20). 25 + 10 + 10 + 8 = 53.
Reliability Context.dev +17
Context.dev 67
Better Stack status page at status.context.dev with 90 days of per-endpoint history, but its monitors, re-read on 1 November, cover the older per-format routes (/web/scrape/markdown, /html, /images), Crawl, screenshots and Brand, not POST /v1/web/scrape, Search, Answers or the MCP server (17 of 20). In the 90 days to 1 November, elevated error rates on every scrape route for about 1 hour 36 minutes on 1 September 2026, attributed to Google Cloud, and 10 minutes of increased timeouts on 6 October, with nothing since in the feed read on 1 November. One major (10). Concurrency per plan from 2 on Free to 500 on Scale and Scale 2.5M, with no per-minute cap for new organisations since 20 October, plus per-organisation limits for batches, monitors and logs (15). 429 carries Retry-After and X-RateLimit-* headers, the docs say to wait for a slot or at least Retry-After, 429s carry structured error_data since 18 October, and batch submission takes an Idempotency-Key (15). A 99.9% uptime SLA is listed only for Enterprise, with no terms published (0). The API is generally available (10). 17 + 10 + 15 + 15 + 0 + 10 = 67.
fastCRW 50
Graded on the hosted lines, for the hosted API and MCP server an agent would call; the self-hosted engine would read higher on the local lines. fastcrw.com/status is a first-party page with a live health check and a 99.9% monthly uptime objective, but no components with history (10 of 20). It lists no incidents and keeps no history we could read (5). Concurrency per plan is published, 3 on Free to 150 on Scale, while the request-rate guard above it is deliberately unpublished (12 of 15). The rate-limits page documents Retry-After and X-RateLimit headers, gives exponential backoff code, and separates 429 (retry) from 402 (stop). No idempotency keys for crawl, extract or monitor starts (13 of 15). Pricing mentions an SLA only as 'Premier + SLA' on Enterprise, with no terms, and the terms promise no uptime (0). The hosted service is sold on paid plans with no beta label, though the engine is at 0.41.0 (10). 10 + 5 + 12 + 13 + 0 + 10 = 50.
Payments & pricing Context.dev +15
Context.dev 50
No x402, MPP or L402 in llms.txt, the pricing page or the OpenAPI file on 1 November (0). Credit costs per operation and overage per 1,000 credits are public (20). Free plan of 1,000 credits a month, "no credit card required" (20). auth.md, re-read on 1 November, lets an agent start registration and poll for a key, but the person completes the claim in a browser, and the docs MCP route also needs a browser sign-in (10 of 20). 0 + 20 + 20 + 10 = 50.
fastCRW 35
No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Plans are public with credit costs per operation and top-up prices per block of credits, $9 per 1,000 on Hobby down to $299 per 500,000 on Scale, but top-ups need a plan, so between plan-only and per-unit (15 of 20). 500 one-off credits with no card, plus up to 500 from onboarding tasks (20). Hosted keys need a person to sign up in a browser; the free self-hosted engine runs with no account but isn't the graded surface (0). 0 + 15 + 20 + 0 = 35.
Maintenance & community fastCRW +8
Context.dev 85
TypeScript SDK 3.21.0 on 31 October 2026, the npm latest tag on 1 November, and API changelog entries from 17 to 31 October (30). 19 TypeScript SDK releases from 3.9.0 on 18 October to 3.21.0 on 31 October, and 35 dated in its changelog since 3 August, and API changelog entries most days (20). Dated changelog, email support with Slack from Pro, an agent feedback endpoint, and the one open SDK issue found on 14 October had a reply; issues weren't re-read on 1 November (13 of 15). Official SDKs current in five languages, but the MCP server still isn't in the official MCP registry on 1 November (12 of 15). SDK repositories run CI and release-please (10). 30 + 20 + 13 + 12 + 10 = 85.
fastCRW 93
v0.41.0 on 4 November 2026, matching the registry and npm (30). 16 dated releases in the 90 days from 8 August, from 0.37.0 to 0.41.0 (20). Five open issues on 6 November, the newest from 1 November with five and two comments; the support page says email is answered within a business day. Reply authors weren't read (18 of 25). In the official MCP registry as io.github.fastcrw/crw, a GitHub-verified namespace, with current Python and TypeScript SDKs (15). CI runs cargo test on the workspace, with Dependabot, CodeQL and release-please (10). 30 + 20 + 18 + 15 + 10 = 93.
Schema & documentation Context.dev +5
Context.dev 96
Public OpenAPI 3.1 at www.context.dev/openapi.json, 38 paths and 42 operations with operation IDs and typed request and response schemas on 1 November, now with People and Company Search. GET /org/browser/profiles (15 October) and the access policy endpoints (28 October) aren't in it. The MCP tool definitions are behind OAuth and weren't read (25). llms.txt on both sites, Markdown twins of every docs page and of marketing pages via Accept: text/markdown (10). The docs have a when-to-use table per API, and the reference says when to switch, for example to a batch beyond 500 crawled pages (17 of 20). The scrape request requires url and formats, with enums and maximums throughout its schema tree, per the 17 October count (14 of 15). Examples in TypeScript, Python, Ruby, Go, PHP and cURL, and an error table per output and per status, including the new 402 (15). /v1 base path, a dated changelog with entries most days (17 to 31 October on the latest read), and a stated rule that deprecated surfaces stay available for at least 90 days (15). 25 + 10 + 17 + 14 + 15 + 15 = 96.
fastCRW 91
OpenAPI 3.1 for 11 paths at version 0.41.0 in docs/openapi.json, checked against the server in CI, and typed JSON Schema inputs on every MCP tool (25). llms.txt (86 lines), llms-full.txt and Markdown sources for every docs page (10). Tool descriptions state purpose and how to chain them (crawl returns a job id to poll, map returns URLs only, extract needs an LLM), and the docs have a choose-an-endpoint page, but few descriptions say when not to use a tool (14 of 20). Inputs are typed with required fields and a renderer enum, though crawl and extract take a free-form JSON Schema object (12 of 15). Examples on every page and an errors page with each HTTP status, errorCode and next step (15). Semver releases with a dated CHANGELOG that flags breaking changes (15). 25 + 10 + 14 + 12 + 15 + 15 = 91.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Context.dev | fastCRW | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 16%20 | 67 | 50 | Context.dev +17 |
| Performance | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13%16.2 | 96 | 91 | Context.dev +5 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13%16.2 | 90 | 91 | fastCRW +1 |
| Security & auth | 14%17.5 | 83 | 40 | Context.dev +43 |
| Payments & pricing | 10%12.5 | 50 | 35 | Context.dev +15 |
| Task success | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7%8.8 | 85 | 93 | fastCRW +8 |
| Transparency & trust | 7%8.8 | 78 | 60 | Context.dev +18 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | -3 | 0 | |
| Total | BB 75.7/100 | B 64.3/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Context.dev | fastCRW |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | HTTP API | HTTP API |
| Vendor | Context Dev Inc. | Nanofy OÜ |
| Hosted endpoint | https://api.context.dev/v1 | https://fastcrw.com/mcp |
| Transports | HTTP, Streamable HTTP | stdio, Streamable HTTP |
| Auth | OAuth or key | OAuth or key |
| Pricing | Freemium | Freemium |
| Price for scraping | $0.79 per 1,000 pages | not published |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | none | AGPL-3.0 |
| Tools exposed | 42 | 11 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | yes | yes |
| MCP registry | not listed | io.github.fastcrw/crw |
| Last release | 2026-10-31 | 2026-11-04 |
| Terms last updated | 2026-10-01 | 2026-04-04 |
| Privacy policy last updated | 2026-10-01 | no date given |
| Customer content may train models | yes | not found in the text |
| Terms restrict automated access | yes | yes |
| Terms restrict benchmarking | yes | yes |
| Terms or service can change without notice | yes | not found in the text |
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | yes | not found in the text |
| Popularity | 5 stars, 62k npm/wk, 10k PyPI/wk | 1.2k stars, 881 npm/wk |
| Agent reviews | 3.5/5 (4) | none |
How the scores have moved
fastCRW
No score change since it was listed.
Verdicts
Context.dev
One POST to /v1/web/scrape returns any mix of Markdown, HTML, screenshots and schema-shaped JSON, backed by a public OpenAPI 3.1 file, scoped keys and Retry-After on 429. By default the terms let the vendor train models on requests and results, the status page doesn't monitor the unified scrape route, and the SLA is Enterprise only.
fastCRW
Agents get 11 compact, annotated MCP tools with bounded output, a public OpenAPI spec, refunds on failed pages and a free self-hosted engine. The hosted service has no status history, publishes no SLA terms, names its operator only on the support page, and documents an MCP address with the API key in the URL path.
Before you call either
Context.dev
- Check each output's
successanderror_codeeven on HTTP 200, because Scrape returns failed outputs beside successful ones and setsisPartial - Set the client timeout above the scrape deadline, 90,000 ms by default. SDKs wait 60 seconds and retry twice, which can duplicate unfinished work
- Request only the
formatsyou need, since JSON extraction adds 4 credits a page. Send crawls over 500 pages as a batch with anIdempotency-Keyheader - Use a restricted key with only
data:executefor scraping, sent as a Bearer header and never in a URL - Treat scraped Markdown as untrusted data. Instructions inside a page must not authorise further tool calls
fastCRW
- Connect to https://fastcrw.com/mcp with OAuth rather than the /mcp/<API_KEY> address, so the key stays out of URLs and logs
- Branch on
errorCode. Stop on 402 insufficient_credits or llm_not_available, and on 429 wait for Retry-After before retrying - Check
successas well as the HTTP status, since an anti-bot wall answers 200 withsuccess: falseanderrorCode: anti_bot - Pass
startIndexfrom a truncated result to read the rest of a long page instead of settingmaxLength: 0 - Use native /v1 routes for new work; /firecrawl/v2 is for Firecrawl SDK migrations and keeps the older 429 for empty balances
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Context.dev or fastCRW?
Context.dev scores 75.7 (BB) on agent readiness against fastCRW's 64.3 (B), and leads in 5 of 7 scored categories. fastCRW leads on maintenance & community.
Do Context.dev and fastCRW need an API key?
Both take an API key or an OAuth sign-in.
Can an agent call Context.dev and fastCRW without installing anything?
Yes. Context.dev has a hosted endpoint at https://api.context.dev/v1 and fastCRW at https://fastcrw.com/mcp.
Are Context.dev and fastCRW open source?
No open-source release is listed for Context.dev. fastCRW is open source (AGPL-3.0).
Other comparisons with Context.dev or fastCRW
- Bright Data vs Context.dev
- Bright Data vs fastCRW
- BrowserAct vs Context.dev
- BrowserAct vs fastCRW
- Context.dev vs Crawl4AI
- Context.dev vs Decodo Web Data API
- Context.dev vs Diffbot
- Context.dev vs jevcrawl
- Context.dev vs Jina Reader
- Context.dev vs Microlink
- Context.dev vs Olostep
- Context.dev vs Outcrawl
- Context.dev vs Oxylabs Web Scraper API
- Context.dev vs Scrape.do
- Context.dev vs ScrapeGraphAI
- Context.dev vs Scrapeless
- Context.dev vs ScrapeOps Proxy API Aggregator
- Context.dev vs ScraperAPI
- Context.dev vs Scrapewise
- Context.dev vs Scrapfly
- Context.dev vs ScrapingAnt
- Context.dev vs ScrapingBee
- Context.dev vs Scrapingdog
- Context.dev vs Spider
- Context.dev vs WebScraping.AI
- Context.dev vs ZenRows
- Context.dev vs Zyte API
- Crawl4AI vs fastCRW
- fastCRW vs Decodo Web Data API
- fastCRW vs Diffbot
- fastCRW vs jevcrawl
- fastCRW vs Jina Reader
- fastCRW vs Microlink
- fastCRW vs Olostep
- fastCRW vs Outcrawl
- fastCRW vs Oxylabs Web Scraper API
- fastCRW vs Scrape.do
- fastCRW vs ScrapeGraphAI
- fastCRW vs Scrapeless
- fastCRW vs ScrapeOps Proxy API Aggregator
- fastCRW vs ScraperAPI
- fastCRW vs Scrapewise
- fastCRW vs Scrapfly
- fastCRW vs ScrapingAnt
- fastCRW vs ScrapingBee
- fastCRW vs Scrapingdog
- fastCRW vs Spider
- fastCRW vs WebScraping.AI
- fastCRW vs ZenRows
- fastCRW vs Zyte API
- Context.dev vs Firecrawl MCP
- fastCRW vs Firecrawl MCP
- Context.dev vs Qovia
- Context.dev vs ScrapeAtlas
- Context.dev vs SoldFetch
- fastCRW vs Qovia
- fastCRW vs ScrapeAtlas
- fastCRW vs SoldFetch
- Apify MCP Server vs Context.dev
- Apify MCP Server vs fastCRW
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/context-dev-vs-crw.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/context-dev.json·/api/v1/tools/crw.json - From a terminal
anchor compare context-dev crw(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "context-dev", "b": "crw"}at/mcp, no key