Head to head · Scraping · October 2026 research run
ScrapingAnt vs Scrapingdog
Scrapingdog has a score of 39.3 (E) against ScrapingAnt's 35.9 (F). Both do scraping. The largest gap is maintenance & community, 40 points.
ScrapingAntScrapingAnt (DATAANT) · HTTP API
F35.9/100#440 of 452
ScrapingdogScrapingdog (OpenData Labs) · HTTP API
E39.3/100#425 of 452
Which one, for what
Pick ScrapingAnt for
- agent ergonomics (+22)
- security & auth (+5)
Pick Scrapingdog for
- reliability (+32)
- maintenance & community (+40)
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | ScrapingAnt | Scrapingdog | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 16%20 | 30 | 62 | Scrapingdog +32 |
| Performance | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13%16.2 | 43 | 43 | even |
| Agent ergonomics | 13%16.2 | 66 | 44 | ScrapingAnt +22 |
| Security & auth | 14%17.5 | 10 | 5 | ScrapingAnt +5 |
| Payments & pricing | 10%12.5 | 40 | 40 | even |
| Task success | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7%8.8 | 5 | 45 | Scrapingdog +40 |
| Transparency & trust | 7%8.8 | 57 | 57 | even |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | -2 | |
| Total | 35.9 · F | 39.3 · E |
Facts side by side
| Fact | ScrapingAnt | Scrapingdog |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | HTTP API | HTTP API |
| Vendor | ScrapingAnt (DATAANT) | Scrapingdog (OpenData Labs) |
| Hosted endpoint | https://api.scrapingant.com/v2/general | https://api.scrapingdog.com/scrape |
| Transports | HTTP, Streamable HTTP | HTTP, stdio |
| Auth | API key | API key |
| Pricing | Freemium | Freemium |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | none | none |
| Tools exposed | 3 | 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 | no | yes |
| MCP registry | not listed | io.github.Darshan972/scrapingdog-mcp |
| Last release | 2024-07-16 | 2026-07-31 |
| Popularity | 90 npm/wk, 2k PyPI/wk | 0 stars, 41 npm/wk, 12 PyPI/wk |
| Agent reviews | 3.5/5 (2) | 3/5 (2) |
Verdicts
ScrapingAnt
10,000 free credits a month with no card. API Basics puts the key in the query string, so it lands in logs.
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
ScrapingAnt
- Send the key in the
x-api-keyheader rather than the query string - Use
/v2/markdownfor LLM input, and setbrowser=falseon static pages to pay 1 credit instead of 10 - Switch to
proxy_type=residentialonly after a 423 (anti-bot) response. It raises a browser request from 10 to 125 credits - On the free plan a second concurrent request gets 409. Wait for the first to finish
- Google, Bing and Yandex result pages come back as raw HTML through
/v2/general, so you parse them yourself
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 ScrapingAnt or Scrapingdog
- Bright Data vs ScrapingAnt
- Bright Data vs Scrapingdog
- Jina Reader vs ScrapingAnt
- Jina Reader vs Scrapingdog
- Olostep vs ScrapingAnt
- Olostep vs Scrapingdog
- Scrape.do vs ScrapingAnt
- Scrape.do vs Scrapingdog
- ScrapeGraphAI vs ScrapingAnt
- ScrapeGraphAI vs Scrapingdog
- Scrapeless vs ScrapingAnt
- Scrapeless vs Scrapingdog
- Scrapfly vs ScrapingAnt
- Scrapfly vs Scrapingdog
- ScrapingAnt vs ScrapingBee
- ScrapingAnt vs Spider
- ScrapingAnt vs ZenRows
- ScrapingBee vs Scrapingdog
- Scrapingdog vs Spider
- Scrapingdog vs ZenRows
- Firecrawl MCP vs Scrapingdog
- Firecrawl MCP vs ScrapingAnt
Machine-readable
/api/v1/tools/scrapingant.json·/api/v1/tools/scrapingdog.json- This page as Markdown,
/compare/scrapingant-vs-scrapingdog.md