Transparency alternatives to Scrapingdog
Other Browser automation and web data vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Scrapingdog. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 25 that differ from Scrapingdog on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Scrapingdog has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data location stated, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Scrapingdog” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Scrapingdog | Found at Scrapingdog, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Browser Usebrowser-use.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Browser Use | 52/100 | 4 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 2 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Firecrawlfirecrawl.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Firecrawl | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Microlinkmicrolink.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Microlink | 57/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Scrapflyscrapfly.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Scrapfly | 43/100 | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Browserlessbrowserless.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Browserless | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Hyperbrowserhyperbrowser.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Hyperbrowser | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| ScrapingAntscrapingant.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ScrapingAnt | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Urlboxurlbox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Urlbox | 26/100 | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Browse AIbrowse.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Browse AI | 17/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Oxylabsoxylabs.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Oxylabs | 17/100 | 2 Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| ScrapingBeescrapingbee.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ScrapingBee | 35/100 | 1 Data location stated | 3 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| ZenRowszenrows.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ZenRows | 35/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | 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.