# Best Firecrawl Alternative for Anti-Bot Bypass > Compare the best Firecrawl alternatives for web scraping, including Zenrows, Crawl4AI, Scrapfly, Apify, Zyte, and Bright Data, with benchmark data. Source: https://www.zenrows.com/blog/best-firecrawl-alternative-for-anti-bot-bypass Zenrows is the best Firecrawl alternative for developers who need to scrape sites protected by Cloudflare, DataDome, PerimeterX, or Kasada reliably at production scale. Firecrawl and Zenrows are not head-to-head competitors. Firecrawl is a transform tool that converts pages into clean Markdown for LLM pipelines and RAG systems, and it does that well. Zenrows is an access tool built to get through anti-bot systems that stop most scrapers before a page loads. Now, your choice of tools should depend on which tool lets you get data from the page or pass data to the page. In our own tests across seven targets (100 requests each at two requests per second), Zenrows averaged 99.85%, while Firecrawl averaged 85.28%. This piece covers Zenrows as the primary recommendation, plus five alternatives for specific use cases: Crawl4AI for open-source infrastructure, Scrapfly for the hardest-protected targets, Apify for prebuilt site-specific scrapers, Zyte for maximum raw success rate, and Bright Data for enterprise compliance and scale. If you want a quick side-by-side overview before diving in, our [Firecrawl vs. Zenrows comparison page](/compare/firecrawl) has you covered. > **Skip the blocks.** [Try Zenrows free](/) and get clean web data without the anti-bot fight. ## Zenrows vs. Firecrawl at a Glance The table below compares Zenrows and Firecrawl across success rate, pricing, billing, output formats, and self-hosting. | Criteria | Zenrows | Firecrawl | | --- | --- | --- | | Success rate, our test (1st June 2026, 7 targets, 100 runs) | 99.85% | 85.28% | | Avg. response time, our test | 11.86 s | 2.10 s | | Effective cost / 1K protected requests | $7.00 | $9.59 | | Residential IP pool | 55M+ IPs across 190+ countries | It lacks the underlying infrastructure needed to bypass protections without Fire Engine | | Entry price (all-products stack) | $69/month (single plan with shared balance) | $99/month | | Free tier | Yes, 1,000 URLs and no credit card required | 500 credits | | Entry price | $69/month | $16/month | | Success-billed only (no exceptions) | Yes | No | | KYC required for full access | No, but requires KYC for high-volume access | No, uses a credit-and-go model | | Output formats supported | HTML, Markdown, auto-parsed JSON, PDF, and Screenshot | HTML, Markdown, structured JSON, and Screenshot | | Pay-only-for-success billing | Yes | No | | Self-hosted option with full feature parity | Cloud only | No | | MCP Server availability | Yes | Yes | The table above gives you a quick overview of both tools. Next, let's break down how we tested FireCrawl and Zenrows before looking at why developers might want alternatives. ## How We Tested We benchmarked Firecrawl and Zenrows on 1st June 2026 against seven target sites with different protection levels and page complexity: - [Amazon product page](https://www.amazon.com/ref=nav_logo) (protected, Kasada/custom) - [Glassdoor company page: Google](https://www.glassdoor.com/Overview/Working-at-Google-EI_IE9079.11,17.htm) (protected, DataDome) - [LinkedIn: Satya Nadella](https://www.linkedin.com/in/satyanadella/) (protected) - [Google SERP result page](https://www.google.com/search?q=web+scraping+api) - [Ikea.com](http://Ikea.com) (mid-sized e-commerce site protected by Cloudflare) - [Zillow real estate listing](https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/) (unprotected) - [BBC news article](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology) (unprotected) Each target received **100 requests** at a concurrency of **2 requests/second**, measuring `HTTP 200` success rate, response time, and the presence of a valid page title in the HTML results. For Zenrows, we used Fetch with `mode=auto`. For Firecrawl, we used the `/scrape` endpoint with default settings. This is a fair comparison, as they're the default out-of-the-box configurations for both tools. This test does not cover Zenrows Scraping Browser. It also doesn't cover Firecrawl's `/crawl` endpoint for full-site recursive crawls, `/agent` endpoint for autonomous extraction, and Firecrawl's self-hosted deployment. Check out the [GitHub repository](https://github.com/ZenRows/zenrows-vs-firecrawl-benchmark) for the full test scripts and data. To calculate our success rate, we used the percentage of requests that returned HTTP 200 with a valid page title across all seven targets. This is our primary criterion. The sections below detail how Zenrows and Firecrawl performed in the test, and break down how they differ across cost, setup complexity, and long-term maintenance. ## Zenrows ### Details Zenrows is a web scraping API that handles browser rendering, proxy rotation, CAPTCHA solving, and anti-bot bypass behind a single endpoint. For this test, we used Fetch on the Developer plan at $69 per month, with Adaptive Stealth Mode (mode=auto) enabled. ### Testing with Amazon Result: 100% success rate Response time: 16.84s ### Testing with Glassdoor Result: 99.0% success rate Response time: 8.67s ### Testing with LinkedIn public profile page Result: 100% success rate Response time: 22.36s ### Testing with Google SERP Result: 100% success rate Response time: 21.42s ### Testing with Ikea.com Result: 100% success rate Response time: 2.59s ### Testing with Zillow real estate listing Result: 100% success rate Response time: 11.20s ### Testing with BBC news article Result: 100% success rate Response time: 2.26s ### Test summary Zenrows averaged 99.85% across all seven targets, with an average total response time of 11.86s. It was fastest on BBC and Ikea.com and strongest on Glassdoor among protected sites at 99%. The 99.85% figure covers all seven targets, including the two unprotected sites. ## Firecrawl ### Details Firecrawl is a web-crawling and data-extraction platform that converts websites into structured, LLM-ready data through a single API. For this test, we used the /scrape endpoint with default settings on Firecrawl's Starter plan, which starts at $16 per month. ### Testing with Amazon Result: 100% success rate Response time: 2.10s ### Testing with Glassdoor Result: 100% success rate Response time: 2.34s ### Testing with LinkedIn public profile page Result: 0% success rate Response time: 0.95s LinkedIn blocked all 100 requests during testing. ### Testing with Google SERP Result: 81% success rate Response time: 1.07s ### Testing with Ikea.com Result: 100% success rate Response time: 1.85s ### Testing with Zillow real estate listing Result: 97% success rate Response time: 3.24s ### Testing with BBC news article Result: 100% success rate Response time: 2.34s ### Test summary Firecrawl averaged 85.28% across all seven targets, with an average total response time of 2.10s. It was fastest on Google and Ikea.com (both unprotected sites). ## Speed Comparison Zenrows had an average response time of 11.86s across all seven targets, while Firecrawl had 2.10s. The table below shows the average response time for each target. | Target site | Zenrows average response time (s) | Firecrawl average response time (s) | | --- | --: | --: | | Amazon product page (protected, Kasada/custom) | 16.84 | 2.10 | | Glassdoor company page (protected, DataDome) | 8.67 | 2.03 | | LinkedIn public profile page (protected, very hard) | 22.36 | 0.95 | | Google SERP | 21.42 | 1.07 | | Ikea.com | 2.59 | 1.85 | | Zillow real estate listing | 11.20 | 3.24 | | BBC news article | 2.26 | 2.34 | | **Average** | **11.86** | **2.10** | ## Anti-Bot Performance To test the anti-bot performance of Zenrows and Firecrawl, we ran 100 requests per target at two requests per second. For Zenrows, we used the universal Scraper API with mode= auto While for Firecrawl, the `/scrape` endpoint with the default setting. The table shows how each tool performed on protected and unprotected pages under the same request rate. | Target site | Zenrows success rate (HTTP 200) | Firecrawl success rate (HTTP 200) | | --- | --: | --: | | Amazon product page (protected, Kasada/custom) | 100% | 100% | | Glassdoor company page (protected, DataDome) | 99% | 100% | | LinkedIn public profile page (protected, very hard) | 100% | 0% | | Google SERP | 100% | 100% | | Ikea.com | 100% | 100% | | Zillow real estate listing | 100% | 97% | | BBC news article | 100% | 100% | | **Average** | **99.85%** | **85.28%** | The result from the testing matches what independent benchmarks already recorded. [Proxyway's 2025 report](https://proxyway.com/research/web-scraping-api-report-2025) is directionally consistent with our test. Zenrows outperformed Firecrawl on a protected site. The report showed Zenrows scored 70.39% and Firecrawl 33.69% across 15 protected sites at two requests per second. The reports also recorded that Firecrawl dropped to 26.69% at 100 requests per second, while still naming it the best suited for crawling long tail rather than individual protected targets. The reason for the number lies more in the tool's architecture. Firecrawl runs anti-bot through fire-engine, a cloud-only layer designed for general content retrieval in LLM pipelines, not for adversarial anti-bot bypass. Zenrows' entire stack is built just for that. Zenrows has TLS fingerprinting, JS rendering, and CAPTCHA-solving capabilities, with 55 million IPs across 190+ countries. For my seven targets, Zenrows averaged 99.85% with response times around 11.86s, similar to Scrape.do's 92.64% success rate across their 7-domain test. Firecrawl averaged 85.28% at 2.10s on the same targets, compared to Scrape.do 60.47%. Firecrawl is a good tool, but it just isn't suited for scraping protected targets. ![Antibot bypass success rate for Zenrows and Firecrawl](https://static.zenrows.com/content/Antibot_bypass_success_rate_for_Zen_Rows_and_Firecrawl_2ef420623e.png "Antibot bypass success rate for Zenrows and Firecrawl") *Check out the [GitHub repository](https://github.com/ZenRows/zenrows-vs-firecrawl-benchmark) for the full test scripts and data.* Price Comparison For the 700 requests from our test, Zenrows costs $2.34 in total. FireCrawl costs 675 credits for the same volume, which is about $3.60 (on the Hobby $16/month, 3,000 credits plan). To truly understand Firecrawl's credit, read [Filip Konecny's billing analysis](https://filipkonecny.com/2026/03/29/firecrawl-limitations/) of the platform. Firecrawl's price baseline starts at [one credit per scraped](https://www.firecrawl.dev/pricing#:~:text=Credits-,Scrape,-1%20/%20page) or crawled page. However, if you read the [billing docs](https://www.firecrawl.dev/pricing), you would see that JSON mode costs and adds [four extra credits](https://www.firecrawl.dev/pricing#:~:text=Credits-,Scrape,-1%20/%20page), and the enhanced proxy adds [four extra credits](https://www.firecrawl.dev/pricing#:~:text=Credits-,Scrape,-1%20/%20page) per request. All this can make a [single request about nine credits](https://www.firecrawl.dev/pricing#:~:text=each%20request%20cost%3F-,Scrape%2C%20Crawl%2C,-Map%2C%20and%20Monitor). Now, if we review the bypass infrastructure numbers in [Firecrawl's May 2025 changelog](https://www.firecrawl.dev/changelog), the real cost of running a successful protected page is [about 27 credits)](https://www.firecrawl.dev/pricing#:~:text=endpoint%20and%20feature.-,Features,-Credits). That estimate assumes the 33.69% Proxyway success rate. This is because the [browser sandbox](https://www.firecrawl.dev/pricing#:~:text=costs-,Interact,-2/%20browser%20minute) runs two credits per minute, `/interact` uses [two credits](https://www.firecrawl.dev/pricing#:~:text=Credits-,Scrape,-1%20/%20page) per browser action, and `/agent` uses dynamic pricing and a protected-site RAG call with JSON and Enhanced, which sits at [nine credits per attempt](https://www.firecrawl.dev/pricing#:~:text=4additional%20/%20page-,Crawl,-1%20/%20page). To get 10k protected pages per month, the standard plan ($99/month with 100k credits) is not enough at this volume. For unprotected, Firecrawl can still be a cheaper option at a small scale. [Prospeo](https://prospeo.io/s/firecrawl-pricing-reviews-pros-and-cons) breaks this calculation perfectly. However, at 100k protected pages, Zenrows business 1k ($999/month) falls short of the 2.7M credits Firecrawl will need to achieve this. This doesn't mean Firecrawl is pricey; it just means Firecrawl is better suited for unprotected workloads under 5000 pages per month. For a workload like that, their $16/month deal is way cheaper than Zenrows's $69 developer plan. It is also important to note that Crawl APU's results, and screenshot URLs [expire after 24 hrs](https://www.firecrawl.dev/glossary/web-scraping-apis/zero-data-retention-web-scraping), so you need to store the results in your system. | Cost variable | Firecrawl | Zenrows | | --- | --- | --- | | Effective cost per 1,000 basic requests | $0.99 ($99 for 100k credits) | $0.28 (no JS or premium proxy) | | Effective cost per 1,000 protected requests (including retry tax) | $20–$25 (JSON + Enhanced Mode stack (9 credits/attempt) against 33.69% Proxyway success rate) | $7.00 (25× multiplier; JS rendering + premium proxies) | | Failure billing | Failed agent requests are billed | Only successful requests are billed. 404 and 410 responses are billed as successful requests. | | Credit rollover | No | No | | Entry price | $16/month | $69/month (Developer plan) | ## Final Verdict Zenrows is the right choice when your targets are protected. It outperformed Firecrawl on average in our test, charges only for successful requests, and delivers a 3× cost advantage per 1,000 successful protected pages once Firecrawl's retry tax and credit multipliers are applied. Choose Firecrawl when your targets are unprotected, your output feeds directly into an LLM pipeline, and your monthly page volume stays under 5,000. Let's explore why you might need an alternative to Firecrawl. ## Why Developers Look for Firecrawl Alternatives Three patterns come up consistently when developers start evaluating alternatives. The first is the protected-site failure. [Proxyway's 2025 report](https://www.zyte.com/blog/best-web-scraping-apis-2026/#Benchmark%20snapshot%20\(Proxyway,%20December%202025\)) put Firecrawl's success rate at 33.69% across 15 heavily protected sites at two requests per second. On targets running Cloudflare, DataDome, or Kasada, most requests do not return usable content. This leads us to the second: the retry costs. The compounding problem is that failed requests still consume credits, which [Ke of Thunderbit](https://thunderbit.com/blog/firecrawl-review-and-alternatives) described as "damn expensive," saying, "I would need to be on the $99/mo plan for my usage level." For teams running protected-site pipelines at any volume, the retry tax quickly turns a modest credit budget into a significant one. The community signal is consistent. One engineer described [replacing Firecrawl entirely](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47578663): "I was paying about $190/month for Firecrawl. It worked, but it was expensive and felt half-baked. The CLI was awkward to use. Maybe I wasn't using it right, but the whole thing felt like it was in flux......So I vibed my own. 3k lines of Elixir, custom readability engine, no external services." The third pattern that comes up when developers are seeking a Firecrawl alternative is the self-hosted parity gap. Firecrawl is licensed under AGPL-3.0 and can be partially self-hosted. The anti-bot layer, Fire-engine, is not included. Neither is the `/agent` endpoint nor the `/browser` endpoint. Developers who chose self-hosting specifically to avoid cloud costs find that the feature they need for protected targets requires the paid cloud plan. What self-hosting gives you is the Markdown converter. For unprotected targets, that is sufficient. For protected ones, it is not. ## Why Zenrows Is the Best Firecrawl Alternative for Protected Sites The core of Zenrows is anti-bot bypass, not a secondary feature layered on top of a content tool. Fetch handles Cloudflare, DataDome, PerimeterX, Akamai, and Kasada automatically, with CAPTCHA solving, JavaScript rendering, TLS fingerprinting, and residential proxy rotation across a 55million IP network in 190+ countries built into the same endpoint. Adaptive Stealth Mode, enabled with `mode=auto`, is where the cost efficiency comes from. Every request starts at the cheapest possible configuration: datacenter IPs, no browser overhead. If the target requires JavaScript rendering or residential proxies, Zenrows automatically escalates. You pay the premium only on requests that need it, not across your entire workload. The default response is HTML, but setting `response_type` gives you Markdown, plain text, structured JSON, or a screenshot from the same endpoint without changing your code. For teams running Puppeteer or Playwright locally, the Scraping Browser replaces that infrastructure with a cloud-hosted headless browser over a single WebSocket connection. Proxy rotation, fingerprint management, and CAPTCHA handling shift to Zenrows' infrastructure. The migration for most existing browser automation scripts is a single endpoint swap. Pricing follows a [four-row multiplier](https://docs.zenrows.com/first-steps/pricing): 1x for a basic request, 5x with JavaScript rendering, 10x with premium proxies, and 25x with both. Only successful requests are billed. Failed requests, retries, and challenge-page responses do not touch your balance. If your targets are unprotected, or you need autonomous extraction via a natural language prompt, read the **"When Firecrawl Is Still the Right Choice"** section before switching. The code below shows how to send a target to Firecrawl's `/scrape` endpoint and ask for the response in both Markdown and HTML formats. The SDK handles auth, the HTTP call, and parsing the JSON response into a doc object with .html and .markdown attributes. Example ```python from firecrawl import Firecrawl firecrawl = Firecrawl(api_key=YOUR_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY) # Scrape a website: doc = firecrawl.scrape("https://www.bbc.com/news/technology", formats=["markdown", "html"]) html = doc.html or "" markdown = doc.markdown or "" print(f"Firecrawl | bytes (html): {len(html)} | bytes (md): {len(markdown)}") print(html[:300]) print("-" * 60) ``` Copied! The Zenrows example code below uses the same target URL, but routes the request through `mode=auto`. So the API can decide when to escalate to JS rendering or premium proxies. Example ```python import requests zr = requests.get( "https://api.zenrows.com/v1/", params={ "apikey": YOUR_ZENROWS_API_KEY, "url": "https://www.bbc.com/news/technology", "mode": "auto" } ) print(f"ZenRows | status: {zr.status_code} | bytes: {len(zr.text)}") print(zr.text[:300]) print("-" * 60) ``` Copied! This code shows how both send a target URL to their respective scraping APIs and retrieve the output. The difference is just how they do it. Below is the output for both platforms: Output ```django Firecrawl | bytes (html): 507714 | bytes (md): 30600
BBC Technology | Technology, Health, Environment, AI