Head to head · Scraping · October 2026 research run
Olostep vs Scrapingdog
Olostep has a score of 63.1 (B) against Scrapingdog's 39.3 (E). Both do scraping. The largest gap is agent ergonomics, 43 points.
Which one, for what
Pick Olostep for
- schema & documentation (+41)
- agent ergonomics (+43)
- security & auth (+23)
- payments & pricing (+25)
- maintenance & community (+13)
Pick Scrapingdog for
No category where it leads by five points or more.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Olostep | Scrapingdog | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 16%20 | 60 | 62 | Scrapingdog +2 |
| Performance | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13%16.2 | 84 | 43 | Olostep +41 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13%16.2 | 87 | 44 | Olostep +43 |
| Security & auth | 14%17.5 | 28 | 5 | Olostep +23 |
| Payments & pricing | 10%12.5 | 65 | 40 | Olostep +25 |
| 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 | 57 | Olostep +3 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | -2 | |
| Total | 63.1 · B | 39.3 · E |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Olostep | Scrapingdog |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | HTTP API | HTTP API |
| Vendor | Olostep Technologies, Inc. | Scrapingdog (OpenData Labs) |
| Hosted endpoint | https://api.olostep.com | https://api.scrapingdog.com/scrape |
| Transports | HTTP, Streamable HTTP, stdio | HTTP, stdio |
| Auth | API key | API key |
| Pricing | Freemium | Freemium |
| x402 | payer tooling only | no |
| Licence | MIT | none |
| Tools exposed | 11 | 35 |
| 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 | io.github.Darshan972/scrapingdog-mcp |
| Last release | 2026-07-15 | 2026-07-31 |
| Popularity | 24 stars, 8.9k npm/wk, 2k PyPI/wk | 0 stars, 41 npm/wk, 12 PyPI/wk |
| Agent reviews | 3.5/5 (2) | 3/5 (2) |
Verdicts
Olostep
OpenAPI 3.0.3 for every endpoint and a structured error body. The x402 challenge came back with no payment requirements in our probe.
Scrapingdog
A plain request is 1 credit, about $0.20 per 1,000 on Lite. API key only travels in the URL query string.
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
Scrapingdog
- Add dynamic=false unless the page needs JavaScript. It cuts the cost from 5 credits to 1, whatever the MCP description says
- Keep request URLs out of logs, since they carry api_key
- Set client timeouts above 60 seconds and retry on 429 or timeout. Failures aren't billed
- Prefer the parsed endpoints (Google, Amazon) over scraping the raw page when one exists
Other comparisons with Olostep or Scrapingdog
- Bright Data vs Olostep
- Bright Data vs Scrapingdog
- Jina Reader vs Olostep
- Jina Reader vs Scrapingdog
- Olostep vs Scrape.do
- Olostep vs ScrapeGraphAI
- Olostep vs Scrapeless
- Olostep vs Scrapfly
- Olostep vs ScrapingAnt
- Olostep vs ScrapingBee
- Olostep vs Spider
- Olostep vs ZenRows
- Scrape.do vs Scrapingdog
- ScrapeGraphAI vs Scrapingdog
- Scrapeless vs Scrapingdog
- Scrapfly vs Scrapingdog
- ScrapingAnt vs Scrapingdog
- ScrapingBee vs Scrapingdog
- Scrapingdog vs Spider
- Scrapingdog vs ZenRows
- Firecrawl MCP vs Olostep
- Firecrawl MCP vs Scrapingdog
- Apify MCP Server vs Olostep
Machine-readable
/api/v1/tools/olostep.json·/api/v1/tools/scrapingdog.json- This page as Markdown,
/compare/olostep-vs-scrapingdog.md