Scraping API PricesScrapeOps vs ScrapingAnt
The current volume and workload boundaries between ScrapeOps and ScrapingAnt.
ScrapeOps
ScrapingAnt
The difference
Both paths, one ruler
ScrapeOps
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
ScrapeOps 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
$99.00 /mo
1M. 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.
ScrapingAnt
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
ScrapingAnt 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
$249.00 /mo
Business. 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. This site has not computed a crossover volume for this pair, and does not claim one. Move the volume on either product page to see where the answer moves.
Decision boundary: for one-credit basic requests, ScrapeOps has the lower computed bill through 50,000 requests, the bills tie from 50,001 through 100,000, and ScrapeOps is lower again from 100,001 through 250,000. ScrapingAnt is lower from 250,001 through 500,000, ScrapeOps from 500,001 through 2,000,000, and the bills tie from 2,000,001 through the last shared published allowance of 3,000,000. (ScrapingAnt pricing, ScrapeOps pricing, retrieved July 26, 2026)
JavaScript preserves the order of those plan-step changes but divides the request volumes by ten because both vendors publish a ten-credit datacenter rendering cost. The comparison changes sharply for residential traffic: ScrapingAnt lists twenty-five credits without rendering and one hundred twenty-five with rendering, while ScrapeOps lists ten without rendering and twenty-five with rendering. (ScrapingAnt credit costs, ScrapeOps request costs, retrieved July 26, 2026)
Billing models side by side
ScrapingAnt sells a four-step monthly credit ladder. Its reviewed table defines one-credit datacenter, ten-credit rendered datacenter, twenty-five-credit residential, and one-hundred-twenty-five-credit rendered residential bundles. Google targeting with datacenter access and no rendering is ten credits. Credits do not roll over, and the pricing page does not publish a dependable numeric concurrency limit. (ScrapingAnt pricing, ScrapingAnt credit costs, retrieved July 26, 2026)
ScrapeOps sells a more granular monthly ladder from small allowances through 3,000,000 credits. It publishes replacement bundles for datacenter, residential, mobile, JavaScript, premium, and anti-bot modes, plus an additive AI-extraction charge. It has no pay-as-you-go overage or rollover, but account settings can renew, upgrade, or block traffic when credits are exhausted. (ScrapeOps pricing, ScrapeOps request costs, retrieved July 26, 2026)
ScrapingAnt says blocked and error responses are not billed and describes a billable response as HTTP 200 with content. ScrapeOps charges HTTP 200 and 404 responses and does not charge other failed responses. A missing-page-heavy crawl should therefore model the different 404 treatment instead of assuming equal billable volume. (ScrapingAnt migration guide, ScrapeOps request costs, retrieved July 26, 2026)
What each provides that the other does not
ScrapeOps is the only one of this pair whose reviewed table exposes mobile proxy, multiple premium levels, CAPTCHA, generic bypass, PerimeterX, DataDome, LinkedIn, and additive LLM-extraction costs. Its plan table also publishes explicit concurrency values, starting with a single concurrent request on its smaller plans. (ScrapeOps pricing, ScrapeOps request costs, retrieved July 26, 2026)
ScrapingAnt is the only one of this pair that markets paid plans without an enforced per-key concurrency cap. It also has a simpler four-bundle proxy and rendering table, which can be preferable when the job does not need ScrapeOps’ premium, mobile, anti-bot, or AI dimensions. (ScrapingAnt pricing, ScrapingAnt credit costs, retrieved July 26, 2026)
Who should pick which
Pick ScrapeOps in its lower basic-request bands, for 500,001 through 2,000,000 basic requests, or when mobile, anti-bot, premium, target, or AI meters need to be selected explicitly. Pick ScrapingAnt in the 250,001 through 500,000 basic band, or when the paid-plan concurrency policy is more important than ScrapeOps’ smaller plan steps. Treat the tie ranges as feature decisions, not invitations to manufacture a universal ranking. (ScrapingAnt pricing, ScrapeOps pricing, ScrapingAnt credit costs, ScrapeOps request costs, retrieved July 26, 2026)
Two uncertainties remain. ScrapingAnt’s pricing capacity statement conflicts with its detailed rendering costs, and ScrapeOps’ single meter representation cannot capture both replacement bundles and its additive AI charge. Build the forecast from the vendors’ complete combination examples and verify account debits for the dominant request shapes. (ScrapingAnt credit costs, ScrapeOps request costs, retrieved July 26, 2026)