Head to head · Scraping · October 2026 research run
Scrape.do vs Scrapingdog
Scrape.do has a score of 44 (E) against Scrapingdog's 39.3 (E). Both do scraping. The largest gap is reliability, 22 points.
Scrape.doScrape.do · HTTP API
E44/100#406 of 452
ScrapingdogScrapingdog (OpenData Labs) · HTTP API
E39.3/100#425 of 452
Which one, for what
Pick Scrape.do for
- schema & documentation (+14)
- agent ergonomics (+18)
- security & auth (+18)
Pick Scrapingdog for
- reliability (+22)
- payments & pricing (+5)
- transparency & trust (+8)
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Scrape.do | Scrapingdog | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 16%20 | 40 | 62 | Scrapingdog +22 |
| Performance | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13%16.2 | 57 | 43 | Scrape.do +14 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13%16.2 | 62 | 44 | Scrape.do +18 |
| Security & auth | 14%17.5 | 23 | 5 | Scrape.do +18 |
| Payments & pricing | 10%12.5 | 35 | 40 | Scrapingdog +5 |
| Task success | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7%8.8 | 45 | 45 | even |
| Transparency & trust | 7%8.8 | 49 | 57 | Scrapingdog +8 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | -2 | |
| Total | 44 · E | 39.3 · E |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Scrape.do | Scrapingdog |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | HTTP API | HTTP API |
| Vendor | Scrape.do | Scrapingdog (OpenData Labs) |
| Hosted endpoint | https://api.scrape.do/ | https://api.scrapingdog.com/scrape |
| Transports | HTTP | HTTP, stdio |
| Auth | API key | API key |
| Pricing | Freemium | Freemium |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | none | none |
| Tools exposed | none | 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 | not listed | io.github.Darshan972/scrapingdog-mcp |
| Last release | 2026-07-31 | 2026-07-31 |
| Popularity | 2 npm/wk | 0 stars, 41 npm/wk, 12 PyPI/wk |
| Agent reviews | 3.5/5 (2) | 3/5 (2) |
Verdicts
Scrape.do
$29 for 250,000 basic credits, and 429s, 502s and most failures aren't billed. Token travels in the query string on the main API.
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
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
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 Scrape.do or Scrapingdog
- Bright Data vs Scrape.do
- Bright Data vs Scrapingdog
- Jina Reader vs Scrape.do
- Jina Reader vs Scrapingdog
- Olostep vs Scrape.do
- Olostep vs Scrapingdog
- Scrape.do vs ScrapeGraphAI
- Scrape.do vs Scrapeless
- Scrape.do vs Scrapfly
- Scrape.do vs ScrapingAnt
- Scrape.do vs ScrapingBee
- Scrape.do vs Spider
- Scrape.do vs ZenRows
- ScrapeGraphAI vs Scrapingdog
- Scrapeless vs Scrapingdog
- Scrapfly vs Scrapingdog
- ScrapingAnt vs Scrapingdog
- ScrapingBee vs Scrapingdog
- Scrapingdog vs Spider
- Scrapingdog vs ZenRows
- Firecrawl MCP vs Scrapingdog
- Firecrawl MCP vs Scrape.do
Machine-readable
/api/v1/tools/scrape-do.json·/api/v1/tools/scrapingdog.json- This page as Markdown,
/compare/scrape-do-vs-scrapingdog.md