Scraping API PricesFirecrawl vs ScraperAPI
The plan-step and rendering boundary between a crawl-oriented credit system and target-aware request credits.
Firecrawl
ScraperAPI
The difference
Both paths, one ruler
Firecrawl
Successes you want
100,000 pages
Your stated workload. Every vendor on this site is priced against this same number.
- ÷ 0.95
Attempts you are billed for
105,263 requests
Firecrawl bills failed fetches, so a 5% failure rate is billed work.
- × 1
What the meter counts
105,263 credits
One attempt is one billed unit for this workload.
- =
Cash per month
$399.00 /mo
Growth. Cheapest of every eligible purchase option, not the first plan that fits.
Bars share one linear scale across the 3 counted stages, so a multiplier shows as length. Units differ by stage and are labelled. Cash is not on that scale.
ScraperAPI
Successes you want
100,000 pages
Your stated workload. Every vendor on this site is priced against this same number.
- × 1
Attempts you are billed for
100,000 requests
ScraperAPI does not bill failed fetches, so failures cost nothing here.
- × 10
What the meter counts
1,000,000 credits
One attempt is not one billed unit here: this workload multiplies by 10 before any money is involved.
- =
Cash per month
$149.00 /mo
Startup. Cheapest of every eligible purchase option, not the first plan that fits.
Bars share one linear scale across the 3 counted stages, so a multiplier shows as length. Units differ by stage and are labelled. Cash is not on that scale.
Both ladders share one linear scale, topping out at 1,000,000 counted units, so a longer bar means more billed work rather than a different drawing.
These figures are for one stated workload: 100,000 JavaScript-rendered pages a month at a 95% success rate. The comparison below names where the answer changes.
The boundary
The paid-plan verdict flips repeatedly for JavaScript-rendered pages after free and trial allowances are excluded. Firecrawl counts the standard page operation at its page rate while ScraperAPI applies its published JavaScript credit multiplier. Firecrawl is lower through 5,000 successful pages, ScraperAPI is lower from 5,001 through 10,000, Firecrawl is lower from 10,001 through 100,000, ScraperAPI is lower from 100,001 through 300,000, and Firecrawl is lower again from 300,001 through one million. This is a staircase, not a permanent ranking, and every boundary sits at a plan allowance or multiplied allowance. (Firecrawl pricing, retrieved 2026-07-26; ScraperAPI pricing, retrieved 2026-07-26; ScraperAPI credit rules, retrieved 2026-07-26)
That calculation assumes every requested page is delivered and treats Firecrawl’s standard scrape as the matching rendered-page operation. Firecrawl says it does not charge for its own timeout or server failure but does charge after fetching a target response, including a target-side error. ScraperAPI says its defined successful responses consume credits and documents a special charge condition for early client cancellation. The sensitivity control matters because a user-side success target can require more attempts from a vendor that bills some target-side errors. (Firecrawl pricing, retrieved 2026-07-26; ScraperAPI credit rules, retrieved 2026-07-26)
How the billing models differ
Firecrawl sells monthly credits and assigns page-based meters to Scrape, Crawl, and Map, with separate meters for Search, Interact, enhanced proxy use, extraction, and Agent. Its self-serve plans do not publish a fixed automatic overage rate, so crossing an allowance moves the workload to another plan or a custom conversation. ScraperAPI also sells monthly credits, but one job can consume sharply different credit counts depending on JavaScript, premium proxy, stealth, and the target domain. Its lower plans likewise do not publish a normal overage rate. (Firecrawl pricing, retrieved 2026-07-26; ScraperAPI pricing, retrieved 2026-07-26; ScraperAPI credit rules, retrieved 2026-07-26)
For standard non-rendered pages, the first useful break is simpler: Firecrawl is lower through 5,000 pages and ScraperAPI is lower from 5,001 through the tested one-million-page range. Rendering changes that answer because ScraperAPI’s allowance is consumed faster while Firecrawl’s published page meter remains attached to the scrape operation. (Firecrawl pricing, retrieved 2026-07-26; ScraperAPI credit rules, retrieved 2026-07-26)
What each offers that the other does not
Firecrawl exposes site-oriented Crawl and Map operations, web Search, browser Interact, monitoring, and an Agent path alongside single-page scraping. ScraperAPI exposes target-specific credit rules for Amazon, Google, Bing, and LinkedIn, structured-data APIs, an asynchronous scraper service, and published concurrency by plan. A buyer gathering a site graph is purchasing a different operation from a buyer sending independent target URLs, even when both eventually receive page content. (Firecrawl pricing, retrieved 2026-07-26; ScraperAPI pricing, retrieved 2026-07-26; ScraperAPI credit rules, retrieved 2026-07-26)
Who should pick which
Pick Firecrawl in the Firecrawl ranges when the workload also benefits from Crawl, Map, Search, or agent-ready extraction. Pick ScraperAPI in the intermediate ranges when the job is a known list of URLs and its target, concurrency, and request modifiers are well specified. Do not carry this JavaScript boundary into Amazon, Google, premium-proxy, stealth, AI extraction, browser-minute, or multi-page crawl work. Each has a different meter, and Firecrawl’s enhanced features can add credits that the standard page baseline does not include. (Firecrawl pricing, retrieved 2026-07-26; ScraperAPI credit rules, retrieved 2026-07-26)
Firecrawl’s fixed Agent rate and some extraction accounting details were not published in the reviewed pricing material, while ScraperAPI does not publish one universal combination rule covering every target and feature multiplier. Those unknowns are kept outside the computed baseline rather than filled with estimates. (Firecrawl pricing, retrieved 2026-07-26; ScraperAPI credit rules, retrieved 2026-07-26)