Most scraping API comparisons are based on marketing pages. Providers cherry-pick their best numbers, hide the failures, and leave you guessing which tool actually works when you point it at a real target.
This one is different. All the data below comes from ScrapeOps' independent benchmark suite, which tests scraping APIs against 28 real websites — from easy targets like Amazon to nightmares like LinkedIn (difficulty score: 95/100). The benchmarks measure success rates, latency, cost per 1,000 requests, and even browser fingerprint quality.
Let's look at what the numbers actually say.
Methodology
ScrapeOps runs automated benchmarks against real websites on an ongoing basis. Each provider is tested under identical conditions:
- Same target URLs across all providers
- Same request volume per test run
- Success = HTTP 200 with valid content (not just a status code)
- Cost calculated as actual credits consumed, not theoretical pricing
- Latency measured as time to successful response
The benchmark suite covers 28 websites spanning e-commerce (Amazon, Walmart, eBay, Target, Best Buy), social media (Instagram, Twitter/X, Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, Pinterest), job boards (Indeed, Monster, Glassdoor), real estate (Zillow, Redfin, Realtor), and search engines (Google).
Each site is assigned a difficulty score from 0-100. Amazon sits at 40 (relatively easy), while LinkedIn, Instagram, Twitter, Google, Walmart, and Facebook all score 90-95 (extremely hard to scrape reliably).
Overall Success Rates: Amazon Benchmark
Amazon is the most popular scraping target, so let's start there. Here's what the ScrapeOps Amazon benchmark found:
| Provider | Success Rate | Avg Latency | Cost per 1K Requests | Plan Tested |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ScraperAPI | 100% | 5.4s | $745 | Startup ($149/mo) |
| Scrapfly | 100% | 17.4s | $800 | Pro ($100/mo) |
| Scrapingant | 93% | 12.3s | $190 | Enthusiast ($19/mo) |
| Scrapingfish | 93% | 10.2s | $72,000 | — |
| Scrape.do | 87% | 5.8s | $290 | Basic ($29/mo) |
| Zyte API | 73% | 10.2s | $230 | PAYG ($23/mo) |
| Scrapingdog | 67% | 17.3s | $200 | Lite ($40/mo) |
| Zenscrape | 60% | 10.0s | $1,660 | Large ($249/mo) |
| ZenRows | 40% | 5.5s | $276 | Developer ($69/mo) |
Key takeaways:
- ScraperAPI hit 100% success rate with the fastest latency (5.4s), but at a premium cost ($745/1K requests).
- Scrapfly also hit 100%, but with 3x the latency (17.4s) and the highest cost ($800/1K).
- Scrapingant delivered the best value: 93% success at only $190/1K requests — the cheapest option that actually works.
- Scrape.do is the speed-value sweet spot: 87% success, 5.8s latency, $290/1K.
- ZenRows struggled with only 40% success despite fast response times.
Cost-Performance Rankings
Raw success rate doesn't tell the full story. ScrapeOps calculates a cost-performance score that factors in success rate, latency, and price. Here's how the providers stack up for Amazon scraping:
| Provider | Cost-Performance Score (0-100) |
|---|---|
| Scrapingant | 100.0 |
| Scrape.do | 86.9 |
| Zyte API | 64.9 |
| ScraperAPI | 19.5 |
| Scrapingdog | 19.4 |
| ZenRows | 16.9 |
| Scrapfly | 11.6 |
| Zenscrape | 7.0 |
| Scrapingfish | 0.9 |
This flips the narrative. ScraperAPI has a perfect success rate but scores only 19.5 because it burns through credits fast. Scrapingant's combination of 93% success and $190 CPM makes it the benchmark winner on value.
The real cost formula: (credits per request × price per credit) ÷ success rate = true cost per successful request
When you factor in failed requests (which still consume credits on most platforms), the gap widens further. A provider with 40% success rate effectively costs 2.5x its listed price per useful request.
Browser Fingerprint Benchmark: Who Actually Evades Detection?
This is where it gets interesting. Success rate measures "can you get HTML back?" But modern anti-bot systems like Cloudflare, DataDome, and PerimeterX use browser fingerprinting to detect scrapers. A scraping API might return HTTP 200 but serve you a CAPTCHA page or garbage data if its fingerprint looks automated.
ScrapeOps tested 10 providers across 15 fingerprint categories, including TLS/JA3 fingerprints, automation signals, hardware realism, viewport geometry, and geographic consistency.
Fingerprint Scores
| Rank | Provider | Score | Pass | Warn | Fail | Critical |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Scrapfly | 86.67 | 11 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| 2 | Scrape.do | 81.43 | 10 | 1 | 3 | 0 |
| 3 | Zyte API | 80.48 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 0 |
| 4 | Bright Data Unlocker | 41.43 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 0 |
| 5 | Decodo Site Unblocker | 35.71 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 0 |
| 6 | Scrapingdog | 32.38 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 1 |
| 7 | Scrapingant | 30.10 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 1 |
| 8 | Oxylabs Web Unblocker | 30.00 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 0 |
| 9 | ScraperAPI | 27.81 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 1 |
| 10 | ScrapingBee | 24.76 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 1 |
The Top 3 are miles ahead
There's a clear tier break. The top 3 (Scrapfly, Scrape.do, Zyte API) all scored 80+, while everyone else is below 42. That's not a small gap — it's the difference between passing as a real browser and getting flagged immediately.
What the failures look like
The benchmark tested 15 specific fingerprint categories. Here's where providers leaked:
Automation signal leaks (critical):
-
Scrapingdog: CDP automation flag set to
truein all sessions -
ScraperAPI: JavaScript engine explicitly identified as
HeadlessChrome - ScrapingBee: Active CDP automation signals detected
- Scrapingant: CDP automation markers present
Geometry impossibilities:
- ScrapingBee: Reported 800x600 screen resolution paired with a 1920x993 viewport (physically impossible)
- Scrapingant: Inner content area exceeds available screen dimensions
Platform mismatches:
- Decodo: Exposed Linux platform in 100% of sessions despite Windows/macOS User-Agent claims
- Bright Data: Leaked "Brightbot" User-Agent identifier
- Scrapingdog: Linux User-Agent paired with Windows-specific fonts
Geographic consistency:
- 8 out of 10 providers had timezone vs. IP geolocation mismatches
- Zyte API consistently reported US timezones regardless of proxy location
The Hard Truth: Which API Should You Use?
Based on the ScrapeOps benchmark data, here's my take:
For easy targets (Amazon, eBay, basic e-commerce):
Best value: Scrapingant — 93% success, lowest cost. If you're scraping product pages at scale and can tolerate 12s latency, this is your pick.
Best reliability: ScraperAPI — 100% success, 5.4s latency. Worth the premium if every request matters (e.g., real-time price monitoring).
Best balance: Scrape.do — 87% success, fast latency (5.8s), moderate cost ($290 CPM), AND the second-best fingerprint score (81.43). This is the all-rounder.
For hard targets (sites with aggressive anti-bot):
Go with fingerprint leaders. If you're scraping sites protected by Cloudflare, DataDome, or similar, success rate on Amazon doesn't matter — fingerprint quality does. The data says:
- Scrapfly (86.67 fingerprint score) — best stealth, zero automation signals
- Scrape.do (81.43) — strong stealth with fast response times
- Zyte API (80.48) — robust environment, but US-timezone leak
Everyone else scored below 42. For protected sites, using a bottom-tier fingerprint provider is burning money on requests that will get blocked.
For budget-conscious projects:
Calculate your true cost per successful request. A provider charging $200/1K with 67% success actually costs $299 per 1K successful requests. A provider at $190/1K with 93% success costs $204. The "cheap" option is often more expensive.
Quick Reference: Cost per Successful Request
| Provider | Listed CPM | Success Rate | True CPM (adjusted) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scrapingant | $190 | 93% | $204 |
| Scrape.do | $290 | 87% | $333 |
| Scrapingdog | $200 | 67% | $299 |
| Zyte API | $230 | 73% | $315 |
| ZenRows | $276 | 40% | $690 |
| ScraperAPI | $745 | 100% | $745 |
| Scrapfly | $800 | 100% | $800 |
| Zenscrape | $1,660 | 60% | $2,767 |
CPM = Cost per mille (1,000 requests). True CPM = Listed CPM ÷ success rate. Data from ScrapeOps Amazon benchmark.
Bottom Line
The benchmarks show there's no single "best" scraping API. It depends on your target:
- Easy sites + budget priority → Scrapingant
- Easy sites + reliability priority → ScraperAPI
- Hard sites + stealth priority → Scrapfly or Scrape.do
- All-around performer → Scrape.do (good success rate, fast, strong fingerprint, moderate cost)
All benchmark data sourced from ScrapeOps.io. Check their full benchmark suite for results on all 28 websites and the fingerprint benchmark for the complete stealth analysis.
Disclosure: Some links in this article are affiliate links for ScraperAPI, Scrape.do, and ScrapeOps. All data and recommendations are based on the independent ScrapeOps benchmarks, not influenced by affiliate relationships.
Need custom web scraping built for your specific use case? Email hustler@curlship.com — we build production scrapers that handle anti-bot, rotation, and data pipelines.
Top comments (0)