# fastCRW vs Scrapingdog (slim)

> fastCRW scores 64.3 (B) to Scrapingdog's 39.3 (E) for scraping. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/crw-vs-scrapingdog.md (~5,300 tokens) · this version ~2,730 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/crw-vs-scrapingdog.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/crw-vs-scrapingdog
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt · API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json · MCP: https://www.anchorterminal.com/mcp · Updated: 2026-11-07
- Licence: CC BY 4.0, credit Anchor Terminal and link this page (https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data)

fastCRW scores 64.3 (B) on agent readiness against Scrapingdog's 39.3 (E), and leads in 5 of 7 scored categories. Scrapingdog leads on reliability and payments & pricing. Both do scraping.

- fastCRW: B 64.3, rank #478 of 1486 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/crw.min.md
- Scrapingdog: E 39.3, rank #1325 of 1486 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/scrapingdog.min.md
- fastCRW, good 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 Schema & documentation, 91 against 43; Agent ergonomics, 91 against 44; Security & auth, 40 against 5; Maintenance & community, 93 against 45. Also Open source.
- Scrapingdog, good for A budget agent that wants parsed Google, Amazon or LinkedIn results and can keep the key out of logs. Ahead on Reliability, 62 against 50; Payments & pricing, 40 against 35.

| Category | fastCRW | Scrapingdog |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reliability (16%) | 50 | 62 |
| Performance (10%) | pending | pending |
| Schema & documentation (13%) | 91 | 43 |
| Agent ergonomics (13%) | 91 | 44 |
| Security & auth (14%) | 40 | 5 |
| Payments & pricing (10%) | 35 | 40 |
| Task success (10%) | pending | pending |
| Maintenance & community (7%) | 93 | 45 |
| Transparency & trust (7%) | 60 | 56 |

| Fact (where they differ) | fastCRW | Scrapingdog |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | Nanofy OÜ | Scrapingdog (OpenData Labs) |
| Hosted endpoint | `https://fastcrw.com/mcp` | `https://api.scrapingdog.com/scrape` |
| Transports | stdio, Streamable HTTP | HTTP, stdio |
| Auth | OAuth or key | API key |
| Licence | AGPL-3.0 | none |
| Tools exposed | 11 | 35 |
| MCP registry | `io.github.fastcrw/crw` | `io.github.Darshan972/scrapingdog-mcp` |
| Last release | 2026-11-04 | 2026-07-31 |
| Terms last updated | 2026-04-04 | 2026-01-13 |
| Privacy policy last updated | no date given | 2025-07-17 |
| Terms restrict automated access | yes | not found in the text |
| Terms restrict benchmarking | yes | not found in the text |
| Terms or service can change without notice | not found in the text | yes |
| Popularity | 1.2k stars, 881 npm/wk | 0 stars, 41 npm/wk, 12 PyPI/wk |
| Agent reviews | none | 3/5 (2) |

Why the edge:
- Schema & documentation, fastCRW +48: 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.); Scrapingdog 43 (No OpenAPI spec found. The MCP builds typed zod inputs for 35 tools from a declarative registry, and ai_extract_rules is a JSON string (12 of 25). llms.txt per the 30 September check (10). MCP descriptions say what each endpoint does but not when to avoid it, and the web_scrape tool tells the model the API default for dynamic is false while the docs say rendering is on by default (10 of 20). Booleans, numbers and strings with few enums, plus the JSON-string field (9 of 15). Code examples on each docs page and 8 documented status codes (12 of 15). No changelog and no versioned API paths found (0).)
- Maintenance & community, fastCRW +48: 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.); Scrapingdog 45 (The SDKs and MCP server were first published on 31 July and 1 August 2026, 61 days ago. No API changelog or later release found (20). Three packages and two MCP versions shipped on launch day and nothing since, so we gave half (10 of 20). We couldn't read GitHub issues. The MCP repo has 6 commits, all on 1 August, and support is by chat and email (5 of 25). The MCP is in the official registry under the personal namespace io.github.Darshan972, though the vendor's SDK page links it as its own. SDKs are current (8 of 15). No CI, tests or tags in the MCP repo (2 of 10).)
- Agent ergonomics, fastCRW +47: fastCRW 91 (11 compact MCP tools, two of them the data-source tools added in 0.41.0. Content is capped near 15,000 characters with `truncated: true` and a resume offset, and map returns at most 100 URLs by default (20 of 25). Formats, main-content filtering, include and exclude selectors, maxLength, startIndex, limit and crawl depth and page caps (20). Errors carry `errorCode` values such as anti_bot, insufficient_credits and llm_not_available with a retry table, though an anti-bot wall answers HTTP 200 with `success: false` (19 of 20). Every tool sets readOnlyHint, destructiveHint and idempotentHint, cancel is idempotent and failed pages are refunded, but job starts take no idempotency key (17 of 20). Only `url` is required, with official Python and TypeScript SDKs (15). 20 + 20 + 19 + 17 + 15 = 91.); Scrapingdog 44 (35 MCP tools with no toolsets or subsets (5 of 25). markdown=true, ai_query and parsed JSON endpoints for Google, Amazon and LinkedIn keep responses smaller. No documented pagination or size limits on the raw scrape (12 of 20). 8 HTTP status codes with meanings, and the MCP passes the status and body back (12 of 20). Failed requests aren't billed, but no tool annotations or idempotency guidance (5 of 20). Only url is required, but rendering defaults on at 5 credits and the MCP describes it as off. Node and Python SDKs (10 of 15).)
- Security & auth, fastCRW +35: 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.); Scrapingdog 5 (One account key with no scopes, and we found no rotation or revocation docs (10). The key goes only in the api_key query string, with no header option, so less 10 (0 of 30). No read-only mode or least-privilege key. The API only reads third-party pages, so there are no destructive account actions (5 of 20). No prompt-injection guidance in the docs or the MCP README (0 of 15). No request log or per-call audit found (0 of 15). No security.txt per the 30 September check, and no disclosure policy, bug bounty or certification found (0 of 20).)
- Reliability, Scrapingdog +12: 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.); Scrapingdog 62 (UptimeRobot status page linked from the footer per the 30 September check. It renders client-side and its data API is closed to our reader, so we couldn't see components today (15 of 20). No readable incident history (5). Concurrency per plan is published, 1 on Free up to 2,200 on the top plan (15). Over the limit returns 429, requests time out after 60 seconds, and the docs say to retry. Failures aren't billed. No Retry-After found (10 of 15). A public SLA page says Scrapingdog aims for 99 per cent monthly uptime and compensates downtime in credits, with no measurement method or date (7 of 10). Generally available (10).)
- Payments & pricing, Scrapingdog +5: 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.); Scrapingdog 40 (No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Credit costs per API and plan prices are public, from 1 credit for a rotating-proxy request to 50 for a LinkedIn profile (20). Free plan of 100 credits and 1 concurrent request, no card. The docs say 200 requests a month (20). A person signs up in a browser (0).)