Web Scraping
ScrapingData ScrapingWeb Scraping
Providers using this tag (133)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 11 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 36 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 36 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 30 Limited public surface area
Emerging 13 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 7 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (55)
Ranked by the provider's API Evangelist rating — the Kin Score is scored per provider, not per API, so every API of a provider shares its band. How the rating works →
Exemplar 8 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 9 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 13 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 12 Limited public surface area
Emerging 11 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (10)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Web Scraping” but do not classify their business under it. Listed unranked and kept out of the count above, because one tagged operation is not a statement about what a company does.
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Markets provisional
Kin Score markets whose measured providers carry this tag. Share is the fraction of the market's measured providers that carry it — it describes the market, not this tag.
| Market | Share of the market's providers |
|---|---|
| News and Media | 22% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 129 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Web Scraping, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Access Clarity | 56.2 | 30 | +26.2 | 129 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 50.6 | 24.5 | +26.1 | 129 |
| Contract Quality | 40.8 | 18.6 | +22.2 | 129 |
| Operational Transparency | 30.3 | 13.2 | +17.1 | 129 |
| Contract Governance | 19.2 | 9.7 | +9.5 | 129 |
| Discoverability | 68.4 | 59.1 | +9.3 | 129 |
A facet is averaged over the members that carry it, not over the whole cohort — the “Scored” column is that count. Averaging an absent facet as zero would score our own coverage gaps as the providers’ posture.
| Artifact | This cohort | Catalog | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCP server (any) | 52% | 18% | +34 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 50% | 16% | +34 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 26% | 13% | +13 |
| Security | 99% | 99% | 0 |
| Arazzo workflows | 4% | 1% | +3 |
| Governance rules | 81% | 36% | +45 |
mcp_pct counts any mcp/ artifact including ones API Evangelist derived from the provider OpenAPI; mcp_first_party_pct counts only servers the provider publishes. Prefer the latter.
- 1 Cloro Incorporation Ltd. 77.4
- 2 Diffbot 76.3
- 3 SerpApi 74.3
- 4 Search1API 73
- 5 Browser Use 71.1
- 6 Context.dev 70.4
- 7 MrScraper 70.4
- 8 Crawl4AI 69.6
- 9 Cracked API 68.6
- 10 Social Fetch 67.6
- 1 AnyAPI 73.5
- 2 Cloro Incorporation Ltd. 69.3
- 3 Cracked API 69.2
- 4 The Hog 65.6
- 5 Social Fetch 64.1
- 6 WebScraping.AI 63.3
- 7 hydrafetch-com 63.1
- 8 Browser Use 61.4
- 9 String 60.7
- 10 SearchApi 60.2
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.