Scraping API PricesScraperAPI vs Scrapingdog
The current volume and workload boundaries between ScraperAPI and Scrapingdog.
ScraperAPI
ScrapingDog
The difference
Both paths, one ruler
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.
ScrapingDog
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
ScrapingDog does not bill failed fetches, so failures cost nothing here.
- × 5
What the meter counts
500,000 credits
One attempt is not one billed unit here: this workload multiplies by 5 before any money is involved.
- =
Cash per month
$90.00 /mo
Standard. 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, Scrapingdog has the lower computed monthly bill through 9,000,000 requests. ScraperAPI becomes lower from 9,000,001 through 10,500,000, then Scrapingdog becomes lower again from 10,500,001 through ScraperAPI’s last published allowance of 21,500,000. The narrow ScraperAPI band exists because one ScraperAPI tier continues while Scrapingdog has already stepped to its next tier. (ScraperAPI pricing, Scrapingdog pricing, retrieved July 26, 2026)
That basic-request boundary is not portable to every endpoint. ScraperAPI’s published Google meter costs twenty-five credits, while Scrapingdog’s Google Search endpoint costs five. Both publish five-credit Amazon or lower commerce options in parts of their tables, but Scrapingdog lists Amazon at one credit. A buyer comparing one million raw calls without describing the targets can therefore choose the wrong plan ladder. (ScraperAPI credit costs, Scrapingdog documentation, retrieved July 26, 2026)
Billing models side by side
ScraperAPI bills monthly credits. Its basic request is one credit, JavaScript and premium proxy are each ten-credit replacement modes, and stealth is thirty credits. The public table also has target-specific meters and named bypass costs. Lower self-serve plans stop at their allowance, while pay-as-you-go is limited to higher tiers and has no published unit rate. Credits do not roll over. (ScraperAPI pricing, ScraperAPI credit costs, retrieved July 26, 2026)
Scrapingdog also bills monthly credits, with a much longer public plan ladder. Basic and Amazon requests are one credit, JavaScript is five, premium proxy is ten, and several search, commerce, social, screenshot, and AI endpoints have their own credit costs. The annual option is described as adding two months, but the current page does not publish effective monthly annual figures. Credits do not roll over. (Scrapingdog pricing, Scrapingdog documentation, retrieved July 26, 2026)
ScraperAPI defines billable delivery as HTTP 200 and 404, with an additional rule for some client-cancelled requests. Scrapingdog says failed requests are not charged but does not publish a complete status-code definition. That difference should be tested against a real error sample before treating nominal credits as equivalent. (ScraperAPI credit costs, Scrapingdog pricing, retrieved July 26, 2026)
What each provides that the other does not
Scrapingdog is the only one of this pair whose reviewed public meter table lists Google Maps, News, Trends, Images, Shopping, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, eBay, and Walmart endpoints. It also publishes a one-credit Amazon endpoint and continues its public plan ladder far beyond ScraperAPI’s last listed allowance. (Scrapingdog documentation, Scrapingdog pricing, retrieved July 26, 2026)
ScraperAPI is the only one of this pair whose reviewed documentation explicitly lists sticky sessions, keep_headers, autoparse, output formats, and wait_for_selector as no-extra-credit options. It also names Turnstile, DataDome, and PerimeterX bypass costs in the central credit table. (ScraperAPI credit costs, retrieved July 26, 2026)
Who should pick which
Pick Scrapingdog when the job is concentrated in its named search, commerce, or social endpoints, when JavaScript’s five-credit meter matters, or when forecast volume lies outside ScraperAPI’s brief 9,000,001 to 10,500,000 basic-request band. Pick ScraperAPI inside that band when the requests are genuinely one-credit basic calls, or when its request controls and named bypass options match required application behavior. (ScraperAPI pricing, Scrapingdog pricing, ScraperAPI credit costs, Scrapingdog documentation, retrieved July 26, 2026)
Do not blend target types into one average. Scrapingdog does not fully define how endpoint, country, AI, rendering, and proxy costs combine, and ScraperAPI does not fully define how target, bypass, and parameter costs combine. The defensible boundary is a set of request-shape boundaries, with the basic range above as only the simplest case. (ScraperAPI credit costs, Scrapingdog documentation, retrieved July 26, 2026)