Transparency alternatives to Firecrawl
Other Browser automation and web data vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Firecrawl. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 25 that differ from Firecrawl on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Firecrawl has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Firecrawl” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Firecrawl | Found at Firecrawl, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microlinkmicrolink.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Microlink | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| Browser Usebrowser-use.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Browser Use | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Scrapingdogscrapingdog.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scrapingdog | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| ScrapingAntscrapingant.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ScrapingAnt | 35/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Public pricing, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Scrapflyscrapfly.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Scrapfly | 43/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| ScrapingBeescrapingbee.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ScrapingBee | 35/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 3 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| ZenRowszenrows.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ZenRows | 35/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| Zytezyte.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Zyte | 30/100 | 1 Status page with history | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Axiomaxiom.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Axiom | 24/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Apifyapify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Apify | 22/100 | 1 Status page with history | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Browse AIbrowse.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Browse AI | 17/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Oxylabsoxylabs.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Oxylabs | 17/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
Only criteria we could measure for both are counted. Where we could measure one and not the other, the row is silent: that would be a statement about our measurement, not about either vendor. Every single result with its source is on the two profiles.