Firecrawl vs Jina
Choosing between Firecrawl and Jina? Both are scraping & crawling providers you can call through a single Auxiliar key, so the honest answer is usually “use whichever wins the job in front of you” — and with one key and one bill, you don’t have to commit to either.
We ran both on the identical curator-fleet corpus. Firecrawl leads on parsing PDFs and documents (8.82 vs 8.43). On the headline test (parsing PDFs and documents), Firecrawl scored 8.82/10 (text accuracy 0.91) versus 8.43/10 for Jina. The full measured breakdown is below.
Measured, side by side
Composite score /10 on each shared capability, from the Auxiliar curator fleet — same corpus for both.
| Capability | Firecrawl | Jina | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parse · PDF/docText accuracy | 8.820.91 · #1/3 | 8.430.78 · #2/3 | Firecrawl |
Beyond the overlap
Capabilities each provider scored on that the other doesn't cover.
Firecrawl also does
- Scrape
- Screenshot
- Extract · AI/schema
- Crawl
- Watch
- Act · declarative
- Act · NL-agent
Jina also does
- Search
- Answer
Firecrawl — choose if
You want the highest-quality scrape/markdown and a single surface for scrape, crawl, extract and screenshot.
Jina — choose if
You want clean LLM-ready markdown from a URL or a search-plus-read in a single call.
Firecrawl — avoid if
You're cost-sensitive on hard targets — stealth + JSON stack ~5–9× the base credit.
Jina — avoid if
You need high search RPM or many results per query (≤5 default, low RPM).
One key. Every provider on this page.
Stop juggling signups and invoices. One Auxiliar API key calls all of them — upstream keys injected server-side, usage billed to a single balance. Swap the base URL and go.
curl https://api.auxiliar.ai/serper/search \ -H "Authorization: Bearer $AUXILIAR_API_KEY" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d '{"q": "latest ai agent news"}'