# Microlink vs Scrapingdog (slim)

> Microlink scores 65.9 (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/microlink-vs-scrapingdog.md (~5,200 tokens) · this version ~2,580 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/microlink-vs-scrapingdog.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/microlink-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)

Microlink scores 65.9 (B) on agent readiness against Scrapingdog's 39.3 (E), and leads in 6 of 7 scored categories. Scrapingdog leads on reliability. Both do scraping.

- Microlink: B 65.9, rank #396 of 1510 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/microlink.min.md
- Scrapingdog: E 39.3, rank #1345 of 1510 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/scrapingdog.min.md
- Microlink, good for Agents that need link previews, screenshots, PDFs, metadata or a page as Markdown from one GET. Ahead on Schema & documentation, 89 against 43; Agent ergonomics, 82 against 44; Security & auth, 44 against 5; Payments & pricing, 47 against 40; Maintenance & community, 86 against 45; Transparency & trust, 75 against 56.
- 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 52.

| Category | Microlink | Scrapingdog |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reliability (16%) | 52 | 62 |
| Performance (10%) | pending | pending |
| Schema & documentation (13%) | 89 | 43 |
| Agent ergonomics (13%) | 82 | 44 |
| Security & auth (14%) | 44 | 5 |
| Payments & pricing (10%) | 47 | 40 |
| Task success (10%) | pending | pending |
| Maintenance & community (7%) | 86 | 45 |
| Transparency & trust (7%) | 75 | 56 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Microlink | Scrapingdog |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | Microlink Labs, S.L. | Scrapingdog (OpenData Labs) |
| Hosted endpoint | `https://mcp.microlink.io/mcp` | `https://api.scrapingdog.com/scrape` |
| Transports | stdio, Streamable HTTP | HTTP, stdio |
| Tools exposed | 24 | 35 |
| MCP registry | not listed | `io.github.Darshan972/scrapingdog-mcp` |
| Last release | 2026-10-31 | 2026-07-31 |
| Terms last updated | no date given | 2026-01-13 |
| Privacy policy last updated | no date given | 2025-07-17 |
| Terms or service can change without notice | not found in the text | yes |
| Popularity | 805 npm/wk | 0 stars, 41 npm/wk, 12 PyPI/wk |
| Agent reviews | none | 3/5 (2) |

Why the edge:
- Schema & documentation, Microlink +46: Microlink 89 (OpenAPI 3.1 at microlink.io/openapi.json for the one GET endpoint with 58 typed parameters, and typed input schemas on every MCP tool in the source (25). llms.txt of 527 lines, auth.md, an API catalogue and Markdown copies of every docs page (10). Tool descriptions are one line with a pointer to the right sibling, such as 'For custom CSS/MQL fields, use microlink_extract', and microlink_search says it needs a key (15 of 20). Parameters are typed with enums for formats and devices, though `data` rules and `function` code are free-form (12 of 15). Examples in seven languages on each page and an error-code page with about 30 codes, each with cause and fix (15). A monthly changelog without day dates, a versioned OpenAPI and dated package CHANGELOGs (12 of 15). 25 + 10 + 15 + 12 + 15 + 12 = 89.); 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, Microlink +41: Microlink 86 (@microlink/mcp 2.8.17 and microlink.io 1.1.4 on 31 October 2026, and October changelog entries for the API (30). 31 MCP releases tagged since 17 September and the October changelog's API changes (20). No open issues on microlinkhq/microlink, a monthly changelog, and email and feedback-form support (18 of 25). Not in the official MCP registry under its own namespace, though the server card names io.microlink/mcp; the JavaScript SDK is current (8 of 15). Lint, tests and coverage run on pull requests (10). 30 + 20 + 18 + 8 + 10 = 86.); 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).)
- Security & auth, Microlink +39: Microlink 44 (One API key per account in the `x-api-key` header, with no scopes, rotation or expiry documented. auth.md says to keep it out of URLs and no query option is documented (20 of 30). Tools are reads apart from microlink_function, which runs caller-supplied code against the page in Microlink's browser, and the checkout tools never return a key (10 of 20). Pages come back as Markdown and text, and no prompt-injection guidance was found in the docs, auth.md or the MCP README (0). A request id on every response, with no per-call log for the customer documented (4 of 15). security.txt is valid to 28 July 2027 and links a responsible-disclosure policy and acknowledgements. No bug bounty or certification found (10 of 20). 20 + 10 + 0 + 4 + 10 = 44.); 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).)
- Agent ergonomics, Microlink +38: Microlink 82 (24 MCP tools in @microlink/mcp 2.8.17 with no toolset filter found (15 of 25). `filter` selects fields, `embed` returns one field as the body, and Markdown and text tools return only page content (18 of 20). Error codes such as EAUTH, ERATE, ECONCURRENCY, EPRO and EPROXYNEEDED with documented fixes (19 of 20). Every tool but microlink_function sets readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, and calls are reads with a cache and `force` to refresh. No idempotentHint (18 of 20). Only `url` is required; official JavaScript SDK (@microlink/mql) and CLI, with examples in seven languages but no other official SDK found (12 of 15). 15 + 18 + 19 + 18 + 12 = 82.); 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).)
- Transparency & trust, Microlink +19: Microlink 75 (The API is closed under terms naming Microlink Labs, S.L. with its registry details, and the SDK, MCP server and the libraries behind it are MIT (20 of 30). The DPA, updated 30 October 2026, gives cache retention of 24 hours by default up to 31 days, logs 15 days and deletion within 15 days, but the privacy policy is undated, names no controller and gives no periods (20 of 30). The terms promise advance notice before a paid feature is materially reduced, and the changelog records changes by month, with no notice period (10 of 20). Subprocessors list updated 16 October 2026, with services, data types and locations (18 of 20). 20 + 20 + 10 + 18 = 68.); Scrapingdog 56 (Closed service with terms revised 13 January 2026, naming OpenData Labs Private Limited under the laws of Rajasthan, India, with no postal address. The MCP is MIT (15 of 30). The privacy policy, revised 17 July 2025, says API calls are stateless and that Scrapingdog doesn't store, log or retain personal data fetched through the API. A DPA is published. No retention periods for account data (22 of 30). No deprecation policy or dated notices found (0). No processors or data locations named (0 of 20).)
- Reliability, Scrapingdog +10: Microlink 52 (Graded on the hosted lines. microlink.io/status exists but is drawn by script, showing only 'Please wait' to our reader, and status.microlink.io failed through our proxy, so components and history are unchecked and scored absent (0). No readable history (5). Free and keyed quotas are published, 5 and 25 requests a day and 2 at a time, with paid quotas from 46,000 a month and x-rate-limit headers on every response (15). 429 with ECONCURRENCY says to wait a second and retry, a quota 429 gives the reset time, and every call only reads, but there is no Retry-After header documented (12 of 15). The terms commit to 99.9% uptime on paid plans, with service credits only under an Enterprise agreement (10). Generally available (10). 0 + 5 + 15 + 12 + 10 + 10 = 52.); 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).)