Firecrawl vs TinyFish
A side-by-side comparison of Firecrawl and TinyFish, drawn from Ignaite's continuously-verified listings.
Compared from listings verified as of
At a glance
| Attribute | Firecrawl | TinyFish |
|---|---|---|
| Category (differs) | Data Ops | Automation |
| Pricing | FREEMIUM | FREEMIUM |
| License (differs) | Open core | Proprietary |
| Deployment (differs) | Hybrid | Cloud |
| Platforms (differs) | API, Web | Web, API |
| Model support (differs) | Model-agnostic | Multi-model |
| Vendor (differs) | Firecrawl | TinyFish |
| Capabilities (differs) |
|
|
The honest brief
Firecrawl
Returns clean LLM-ready markdown (not raw HTML), handles JS + anti-bot, and its AGPL core can be self-hosted.
- Clean markdown / structured JSON output
- Manages proxies and JS rendering for you
- AGPL core, self-hostable
- Scrape, crawl, map, search in one API
- AGPL license constrains redistribution
- Hosted usage priced by credits
- Heavy sites can still need tuning
TinyFish
A managed, outcome-based service for Fortune-500 scale, rather than a self-serve browser-automation library teams wire up themselves.
- Web agents handle dynamic, changing pages
- Outcome-based enterprise workflows
- Runs across thousands of sites at once
- Founded by experienced operators
- Enterprise-oriented
- Pricing tiers not fully clear
- Young company (launched 2025)
When to pick which
Both cover Web scraping.
Pick Firecrawl if you need Unified search and Structured extraction.
- Unified search (secondary capability)
- Structured extraction (secondary capability)
Pick TinyFish if you need Browser automation and Workflow orchestration.
- Browser automation (primary capability)
- Workflow orchestration (secondary capability)
They also differ on:
- License
- Open core · Proprietary
- Deployment
- Hybrid · Cloud