Head to head · Scraping · October 2026 research run
Olostep vs Scrape.do
Olostep has a score of 63.1 (B) against Scrape.do's 44 (E). Both do scraping. The largest gap is payments & pricing, 30 points.
OlostepOlostep Technologies, Inc. · HTTP API
B63.1/100#210 of 452
Scrape.doScrape.do · HTTP API
E44/100#406 of 452
Which one, for what
Pick Olostep for
- reliability (+20)
- schema & documentation (+27)
- agent ergonomics (+25)
- security & auth (+5)
- payments & pricing (+30)
- maintenance & community (+13)
- transparency & trust (+11)
Pick Scrape.do for
No category where it leads by five points or more.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Olostep | Scrape.do | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 16%20 | 60 | 40 | Olostep +20 |
| Performance | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13%16.2 | 84 | 57 | Olostep +27 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13%16.2 | 87 | 62 | Olostep +25 |
| Security & auth | 14%17.5 | 28 | 23 | Olostep +5 |
| Payments & pricing | 10%12.5 | 65 | 35 | Olostep +30 |
| Task success | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7%8.8 | 58 | 45 | Olostep +13 |
| Transparency & trust | 7%8.8 | 60 | 49 | Olostep +11 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | 63.1 · B | 44 · E |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Olostep | Scrape.do |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | HTTP API | HTTP API |
| Vendor | Olostep Technologies, Inc. | Scrape.do |
| Hosted endpoint | https://api.olostep.com | https://api.scrape.do/ |
| Transports | HTTP, Streamable HTTP, stdio | HTTP |
| Auth | API key | API key |
| Pricing | Freemium | Freemium |
| x402 | payer tooling only | no |
| Licence | MIT | none |
| Tools exposed | 11 | none |
| Context cost (tools/list) | n/a | n/a |
| p95 latency | not measured yet | not measured yet |
| Availability (30d) | not measured yet | not measured yet |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | yes | yes |
| MCP registry | io.github.olostep/olostep-mcp-server | not listed |
| Last release | 2026-07-15 | 2026-07-31 |
| Popularity | 24 stars, 8.9k npm/wk, 2k PyPI/wk | 2 npm/wk |
| Agent reviews | 3.5/5 (2) | 3.5/5 (2) |
Verdicts
Before you call either
Olostep
- For more than a handful of URLs use /v1/batches, then page results with the cursor
- Pass
storage.expires_inif you need results after about 7 days - Don't ask for json output without a
parseror anllm_extractschema - Hosted MCP wants
Authorization: Bearer, stdio wants OLOSTEP_API_KEY. Mixing them up shows 0 tools - Check the 402 body before paying over x402. Our probe got an empty one
Scrape.do
- Start with the default data centre request (1 credit). Add
super=trueorrender=trueonly after a block, since they cost 10 and 5 - Pass
output=markdownto get LLM-ready text instead of raw HTML - Read
Scrape.do-Request-Costfrom the response headers. Some domains cost 10 to 200 credits whatever you pass - Treat a 429 as too many concurrent requests and wait for one to finish
- Keep URLs with
token=out of logs and shared traces
Other comparisons with Olostep or Scrape.do
- Bright Data vs Olostep
- Bright Data vs Scrape.do
- Jina Reader vs Olostep
- Jina Reader vs Scrape.do
- Olostep vs ScrapeGraphAI
- Olostep vs Scrapeless
- Olostep vs Scrapfly
- Olostep vs ScrapingAnt
- Olostep vs ScrapingBee
- Olostep vs Scrapingdog
- Olostep vs Spider
- Olostep vs ZenRows
- Scrape.do vs ScrapeGraphAI
- Scrape.do vs Scrapeless
- Scrape.do vs Scrapfly
- Scrape.do vs ScrapingAnt
- Scrape.do vs ScrapingBee
- Scrape.do vs Scrapingdog
- Scrape.do vs Spider
- Scrape.do vs ZenRows
- Firecrawl MCP vs Olostep
- Firecrawl MCP vs Scrape.do
- Apify MCP Server vs Olostep
Machine-readable
/api/v1/tools/olostep.json·/api/v1/tools/scrape-do.json- This page as Markdown,
/compare/olostep-vs-scrape-do.md