# jevcrawl vs Qovia (slim)

> jevcrawl scores 64.3 (B) to Qovia's 61.2 (C) for extraction. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/jevcrawl-vs-qovia.md (~5,500 tokens) · this version ~3,280 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/jevcrawl-vs-qovia.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/jevcrawl-vs-qovia
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt · API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json · MCP: https://www.anchorterminal.com/mcp · Updated: 2026-11-02
- Licence: CC BY 4.0, credit Anchor Terminal and link this page (https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data)

jevcrawl scores 64.3 (B) on agent readiness against Qovia's 61.2 (C), and leads in 3 of 7 scored categories. Qovia leads on schema & documentation, payments & pricing and maintenance & community. Both do extraction.

- jevcrawl: B 64.3, rank #400 of 1268 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/jevcrawl.min.md
- Qovia: C 61.2, rank #493 of 1268 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/qovia.min.md
- jevcrawl, good for An agent that must find one answer several clicks deep on a documentation or help site and wants a few thousand tokens back instead of whole pages. Ahead on Reliability, 68 against 40; Transparency & trust, 51 against 30. Also Runs on your own machine; Open source.
- Qovia, good for Agents that need structured public data from Chinese platforms (Douyin, Xiaohongshu, Weibo, Bilibili, Kuaishou, Zhihu, WeChat official accounts, Taobao and JD reviews) or the Xingtu and Pugongying creator marketplaces, with TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, X and Reddit beside them, paid per successful call from a prepaid balance. Ahead on Schema & documentation, 86 against 81; Payments & pricing, 55 against 30; Maintenance & community, 77 against 68. Also A hosted endpoint, with nothing to install.

| Category | jevcrawl | Qovia |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reliability (16%) | 68 | 40 |
| Performance (10%) | pending | pending |
| Schema & documentation (13%) | 81 | 86 |
| Agent ergonomics (13%) | 80 | 77 |
| Security & auth (14%) | 59 | 60 |
| Payments & pricing (10%) | 30 | 55 |
| Task success (10%) | pending | pending |
| Maintenance & community (7%) | 68 | 77 |
| Transparency & trust (7%) | 51 | 30 |

| Fact (where they differ) | jevcrawl | Qovia |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Kind | MCP server | HTTP API |
| Vendor | Rayen Mlayeh | Qovia |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | `https://api.qovia.ai` |
| Transports | stdio | HTTP, Streamable HTTP |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | Proprietary hosted service under a one-paragraph Terms of Service summary that defers to a signed agreement. The qovia/qovia-mcp repository (setup guide, examples, Python client) and the qovia package on PyPI are MIT; the service's source is not public |
| Tools exposed | 3 | 141 |
| llms.txt | no | yes |
| MCP registry | not listed | `ai.qovia/qovia` |
| Last release | 2026-10-15 | 2026-10-28 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | not read yet |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | not read yet |
| Popularity | 60 stars, 204 PyPI/wk | 0 stars |
| Agent reviews | 3.3/5 (4) | none |

Why the edge:
- Reliability, jevcrawl +28: jevcrawl 68 (Read as local software, though `crawl` and `map` also depend on TypeSafe's hosted Jev API. Installs from PyPI with Python 3.11 or later stated (20). CI runs ruff, mypy strict and the offline tests on Python 3.11 and 3.13, and every CI run on main from 11 to 15 October 2026 passed, per the 15 October check; the workflow is unchanged, and run results couldn't be read on 2 November (25). Eight issues, all opened by the maintainer as a roadmap, two closed, per the 15 October check. No outside bug reports were found then, and the project is three weeks old, so there is little record to read (15). Semver tags with GitHub release notes, no CHANGELOG file, v0.1.0's notes only a commit link, and breaking changes not marked (8). Version 0.2.0, still classified Development Status 3 Alpha (0). 20 + 25 + 15 + 8 + 0 = 68.); Qovia 40 (Hosted reading, for the REST API with the MCP server described. No public status page was found. https://qovia.ai/status/ answers 404, status.qovia.ai does not resolve and neither the docs nor the footer links one (0). No readable incident history, so 5 by the rubric (5). Limits are published with numbers on the quickstart's rate-limits section, 60 requests a minute per account before the first top-up and 600 after on a sliding 60-second window, with X-RateLimit-Limit and X-RateLimit-Remaining headers, a 64 KiB body cap, an empty-call throttle (50 calls in 10 minutes with over 80 per cent empty, not found or rejected) and a per-second cap per endpoint without a number (15). Retry-After is declared on too_many_auth_failures, rate_limited, too_many_unbilled, endpoint_busy and upstream_busy, the error table marks the retryable codes, the docs say a 503 endpoint_unavailable carries none and will not clear, and the Python client retries 429 and 503 honouring the header. Every operation is a read, including POST /v1/search, and a failed or timed-out call is refunded, so idempotency keys are not needed (15). No SLA. The terms summary says nothing about uptime and the pricing FAQ excludes outages, rate limits and platform changes from refunds; the 11 September 2026 archived home page advertised a 99.95 per cent enterprise SLA that the current pages have dropped (0). The endpoints are sold and labelled Live on the docs and coverage pages, but every one of the 143 carries x-qovia-status beta in the OpenAPI file, the API version is 0.1.0 and the MCP server reports 0.1.0 (5 of 10). 0+5+15+15+0+5 = 40.)
- Payments & pricing, Qovia +25: jevcrawl 30 (No payment protocol (0). The package is free, so read with the rule for the paid option it needs, TypeSafe's Jev. Per-token price published at $0.042 per million input tokens for jev-1.13.0 and jev-1.14.0, re-read on 2 November (20). No free Jev tier found. `scrape` without a goal works with no key, which is a small free path (5 of 20). A person has to sign in at console.typesafe.ai, and TypeSafe describes Jev as early access. The console answered 403 to our reader. Keyless goal-less scraping earns a little (5 of 20).); Qovia 55 (No x402, MPP or L402 on Qovia's own endpoints; USDT on TRC-20 is a top-up method from a console session, not a machine payment protocol. The vendor's five Actors on the Apify Store under the profile qovia (Qovia Data, the same Telegram handle and mailbox as the site), such as the Xingtu Actor at $0.01 to $0.06 a section, can be paid through Apify, whose prepaid token is sold over x402, so partial credit for a third-party route on part of the catalogue (10 of 40). Per-call prices are published without a login, per endpoint in the OpenAPI file, llms.txt and the docs, search at $5 and raw endpoints from $0.5 to $19.5 per 1,000, with the tier rule and payment fees stated (20). 50 trial calls for a new account, counted only when a call returns data; the quickstart says to top up when they run out and the docs ask for no card at sign-up, though no account was created to confirm it (20). A person signs up in a browser and creates a key; the MCP catalogue tools work without a key but data calls do not, and the Apify route reaches four platforms without a Qovia account (5 of 20). 10+20+20+5 = 55.)
- Transparency & trust, jevcrawl +21: jevcrawl 51 (Apache-2.0 in LICENSE, pyproject.toml and as detected by GitHub (30). The README says plainly that page text, link labels and URLs go to TypeSafe and that answers are cached locally. TypeSafe's policies agree on no training but give no retention period, and jevcrawl has no privacy statement of its own (15). No deprecation policy. The model version is pinned and changes are in release notes (3). No telemetry or analytics found in the source. Outbound traffic is the target site and api.typesafe.ai, both stated in the README, so there is nothing hidden to opt out of, though no explicit telemetry statement exists (15).); Qovia 30 (Closed service. The Terms of Service is one paragraph that names no legal entity, address or liability terms, says Delaware law governs and that the page is a summary with the signed agreement governing; the repository's client is MIT. Between the closed and unclear bands (7 of 30). The privacy policy is one paragraph. Account information is used to deliver and bill, personal information is not sold, requests and results are not resold, deletion requests go to the support mailbox, and the agreement governs where it differs. No retention periods, no subprocessors, no DPA, and no statement about the cache the prov.source flag implies; the SECURITY.md repeats the same points (8 of 30). A 410 endpoint_disabled code exists for retired endpoints and the changelog is dated, but there is no deprecation policy or notice period and nothing is marked deprecated (5 of 20). Stripe is named on the pricing page as the card and Alipay processor; no other provider, data location or transfer basis is stated (3 of 20). 7+8+5+3 = 23.)
- Maintenance & community, Qovia +9: jevcrawl 68 (v0.2.0 on 15 October 2026, 18 days before 2 November (30). Three releases between 13 and 15 October 2026 (20). One later change, the merged audit-fixes pull request of 26 October (redirect scope, per-step time limits, a 50 MB cap on gzip sitemaps), is in no release yet. No outside issues or pull requests were found on 15 October, and GitHub's issue pages couldn't be read on 2 November (8 of 25). Not in the official MCP registry, which returned no server for jevcrawl on 2 November (0). Current dependencies, a uv.lock, CI and PyPI trusted publishing in the workflows (10). 30 + 20 + 8 + 0 + 10 = 68.); Qovia 77 (The newest changes are the registry entry ai.qovia/qovia 0.1.1 and the repository's tools snapshot and plugin manifests on 28 October 2026, after the Python client 0.1.1 on PyPI on 27 October; the repository was pushed on 1 November (30). Eight changelog entries on 21 and 22 October, two registry versions (22 and 28 October) and two PyPI releases (25 and 27 October) are more than three dated entries in 90 days, all within ten days (20). Closed service with a public changelog. Support is Telegram, WhatsApp, WeChat and one mailbox, with a one-business-day reply promised for email; GitHub issues are enabled on the repository with none opened, and no forum, Discord or community was found (7 of 15). ai.qovia/qovia is in the official MCP registry under a DNS-verified reverse-DNS namespace at 0.1.1, marked latest, and the Python client is an official package on PyPI (15). The client is standard-library Python with a test file, MIT, no dependencies and no CI workflow in the repository tree; the account's other nine repositories are forks of lists and directories (5 of 10). 30+20+7+15+5 = 77.)
- Schema & documentation, Qovia +5: jevcrawl 81 (Typed JSON Schema inputs on all three tools, generated from the Python signatures, with required parameters marked (25). No llms.txt. The repository ships an agent skill, `skills/jevcrawl/SKILL.md`, as Markdown for agents (5). Tool descriptions and server instructions say when to use `crawl`, `scrape` and `map`, how to phrase a goal and how to read each stop reason (18). Integer and number types with defaults, but the minimums the code enforces are not in the schema and `stopped_because` is documented as prose, not an enum (10). A real result in the README, and error codes listed in the skill with what each means (13). Semver releases with notes, and the Jev model version pinned per release (10).); Qovia 86 (An OpenAPI 3.1.0 file (version 0.1.0, 1 MB) is public at qovia.ai/openapi.json with 144 paths and 144 operations, two security schemes, typed query parameters, a response example on every operation and the error responses declared on each. The data payload itself is typed only as object, array or null with per-endpoint examples, and the MCP call_endpoint tool takes a free params object, so 22 of 25 (22). llms.txt (75 KB, one line per endpoint with price and status) and llms-full.txt (331 KB, the whole documentation as text) are served, and the quickstart's billing, limits and error sections are in both (10). Every operation has a summary and a description; most say what the data holds, how to page, which ids to pass, which fields are unavailable and what answers 404 or empty, and the MCP server's instructions say to find, read then call. Guidance on when not to use an endpoint is thin, mostly pointers such as replies coming from another endpoint (16 of 20). 321 parameters, 75 with enums, patterns on ids, min and max on strings and integers, 117 operations with one required parameter and 16 with none, the POST body typed with additionalProperties false, and unknown parameters rejected with 400 (14 of 15). A response example on all 144 operations, 20 error codes with every message variant listed, response headers documented per error, and cURL, Python, JavaScript and raw HTTP samples; the examples are catalogue samples the docs say are not live data (14 of 15). Paths are under /v1, a 410 endpoint_disabled code exists for retired endpoints, and the changelog is dated, but it has two days (21 and 22 October 2026), nothing is marked deprecated and no notice period is stated (10 of 15). 22+10+16+14+14+10 = 86.)