ScrapeGraphAI Alternative in 2026 — fastCRW (Rust API, Simpler Extraction)
ScrapeGraphAI alternative comparison: SGA is LLM-native Python with graph-based pipelines and multi-provider support. fastCRW is Rust API-first with simpler /v1/scrape JSON extraction — bring your own LLM provider on self-host, or use the managed LLM on paid cloud plans, with a fast local cold start and a self-hostable binary.
Choose fastCRW when you want simpler LLM extraction (bring your own provider on self-host, or the managed LLM on paid cloud plans), a REST API you can self-host as a single binary, and faster iteration without graph complexity. ScrapeGraphAI's deep graph-based orchestration and litellm provider breadth (Gemini, Groq, Ollama) serve a narrower need: teams building complex multi-step extraction logic directly inside a Python ML pipeline.
Verdict
ScrapeGraphAI and fastCRW both combine scraping with LLM-based extraction. SGA is Python-centric and graph-flexible. fastCRW is Rust-native, REST-API-first, and simpler.
This page is honest: SGA wins on LLM provider choice (8+ providers). fastCRW wins on simplicity, self-hosting weight, and REST API design.
Who this page is for
Three readers:
- Using ScrapeGraphAI, want to try a faster/lighter alternative — skip to Capability matrix.
- Evaluating REST API scraper with LLM extraction — see API comparison.
- Searching "scrapegraphai alternative" — the head-to-head section is the short version.
Capability matrix
| Capability | ScrapeGraphAI | fastCRW |
|---|---|---|
| Extraction approach | Graph-based (multi-step, conditional) | JSON schema + function_calling |
| LLM providers | 8+ (OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini, Groq, Ollama, OpenRouter, Vertex, Cohere via litellm) | Managed LLM (paid plans) |
| Extraction query format | Natural language description | JSON schema (structured) |
| Deployment model | Python library (pip install) | REST API (binary or container) |
| API | Python class methods | HTTP endpoints (/v1/scrape, /v1/crawl) |
| Single-URL extraction | ✅ | ✅ |
| Batch extraction | ⚠️ (via for-loop or custom orchestration) | ✅ up to 50 URLs via /v1/extract, or /v1/crawl for full-site batches |
| Crawl + extract | ❌ (library expects you to handle crawl) | ✅ (/v1/crawl with extraction) |
| Self-hosting | ✅ (Python library, run anywhere) | ✅ (AGPL-3.0 single binary) |
| Self-host binary size | ~200 MB+ (Python + deps) | ~8 MB (Rust binary) |
| Cold start | 1–3 seconds (Python startup) | Fast local cold start (Rust binary) |
| REST API available | ❌ (community wrappers exist) | ✅ (built-in) |
| Markdown/HTML output | ❌ (extraction only) | ✅ (/v1/scrape formats: ["markdown"]) |
| JavaScript rendering | ✅ (with playwright) | ✅ (auto-detect, LightPanda/Chrome) |
| Rate limiting | Self-managed (per-request via code) | ✅ (built-in per-domain, per-second) |
| MCP support | ❌ | ✅ (Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf) |
| Cost (self-hosted) | Free (library) + LLM key | Free (AGPL-3.0) + server (no LLM features on self-host/FREE) |
| Cost (managed) | N/A (no official managed) | $13–$69/mo (credits; managed LLM on paid plans) |
API Comparison
ScrapeGraphAI (Python library)
from scrapegraphai.graphs import SmartScraperGraph
graph_config = {
"llm": {"model": "gpt-4", "api_key": "your-key"},
"verbose": True,
}
scraper = SmartScraperGraph(
prompt="Extract product names and prices",
source="https://example.com/products",
config=graph_config
)
result = scraper.run()
# result = {"products": [{"name": "...", "price": "..."}, ...]}
Pros: Natural language queries, multi-step graphs, flexible reasoning.
Cons: Requires Python, library overhead, cold start.
fastCRW (REST API)
curl -X POST http://localhost:8080/v1/scrape \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"url": "https://example.com/products",
"formats": ["json"],
"schema": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"products": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"name": {"type": "string"},
"price": {"type": "string"}
}
}
}
}
}
}'
Or in Python:
import requests
response = requests.post(
"http://localhost:8080/v1/scrape",
json={
"url": "https://example.com/products",
"formats": ["json"],
"schema": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"products": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"name": {"type": "string"},
"price": {"type": "string"}
}
}
}
}
}
}
)
result = response.json()
# result["json"] = {"products": [...]}
Pros: Language-agnostic, REST API, simple schema-based extraction.
Head-to-head
| Decision area | ScrapeGraphAI | fastCRW |
|---|---|---|
| LLM provider choice | ✅ 8+ (litellm) | ✅ self-host: bring your own LLM; managed cloud: managed LLM on paid plans |
| Simplicity (hello-world) | ✅ Python import | ✅ One HTTP call with a JSON schema |
| Self-host weight | ⚠️ ~200 MB+ (Python runtime) | ✅ ~8 MB (Rust binary) |
| Cold start | ⚠️ 1–3 seconds | ✅ Fast local cold start |
| API-first design | ❌ (Python library) | ✅ (REST) |
| Batch scrape+extract | ⚠️ (DIY loop) | ✅ up to 50 URLs via /v1/extract, or /v1/crawl |
| Crawl + extract | ❌ (crawl separately) | ✅ (/v1/crawl) |
| Language-agnostic | ❌ (Python only) | ✅ (REST API) |
| Cost (free) | ✅ (library + your own LLM key) | ✅ (AGPL-3.0 self-host; FREE has no LLM features) |
| Cost (scale, 1k scrapes/mo) | ~$5–20 (LLM) | $13/mo Hobby (5k credits) or $0 (self-host + server) |
The comparison is honest: SGA's graph approach is more powerful for complex logic. fastCRW's REST API is simpler for straightforward extraction.
When to choose ScrapeGraphAI
ScrapeGraphAI fits a narrow, specific case: extraction logic that needs Gemini, Groq, or Ollama specifically via litellm, deep graph-based multi-step orchestration (fetch → parse → extract → validate → transform in one call), or a team that wants scraping embedded directly as a Python library inside an existing ML pipeline.
When to choose fastCRW
- Simpler extraction. JSON schema + LLM extraction, no graph orchestration needed.
- REST API over library. You want to call from any language, not just Python.
- Lightweight self-hosting. 8 MB binary vs 200+ MB Python environment.
- Faster iteration. Fast local cold start vs 1–3 seconds of Python startup.
- Crawl + extract in one call.
/v1/crawlwith per-URL extraction. - MCP integration. Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf.
- Managed option preferred. fastCRW managed plans ($13–$69/mo) vs SGA free library.
Switch to fastCRW if: simplicity, speed, and API-first design fit your workflow better than a Python-embedded graph library.
Migration path (ScrapeGraphAI → fastCRW)
Step 1: Extract your SGA extraction query
# Before: ScrapeGraphAI
prompt = "Extract product names, prices, and in-stock status"
Step 2: Convert to JSON schema
{
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"products": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"name": { "type": "string" },
"price": { "type": "string" },
"inStock": { "type": "boolean" }
}
}
}
}
}
Step 3: Deploy fastCRW
# Option A: Managed
# Sign up at fastcrw.com, get API key
# Option B: Self-host
docker run -p 8080:8080 ghcr.io/us/crw:latest
Step 4: Call fastCRW API
import requests
# Before (ScrapeGraphAI)
from scrapegraphai.graphs import SmartScraperGraph
scraper = SmartScraperGraph(prompt="...", source=url, config=config)
result = scraper.run()
# After (fastCRW)
response = requests.post(
"http://localhost:8080/v1/scrape",
json={"url": url, "formats": ["json"], "schema": {...}}
)
result = response.json()["json"]
Effort: ~1–2 hours for simple migrations. More if your SGA graphs are complex (may need custom orchestration in fastCRW).
LLM provider model
On fastCRW's managed cloud, LLM extraction runs on a managed LLM available on paid plans (the FREE plan has no LLM features). Self-hosting fastCRW gives you provider choice: configure your own LLM provider key (OpenAI-compatible endpoints, Azure, OpenRouter and more) via CRW_EXTRACTION__LLM__*. ScrapeGraphAI's litellm integration covers a broader provider list including Gemini, Groq, and Ollama, which matters if one of those specific providers is a hard requirement.
Related
- Firecrawl alternative — fastCRW vs the larger ecosystem.
- Jina Reader alternative — when URL→markdown is enough.
- fastCRW self-hosting guide — detailed on-prem setup.
- Building RAG with web scraping — extraction for LLM pipelines.
Continue exploring
More from Alternatives
Browser Use Alternative (2026) — fastCRW Scraping API
Firecrawl Alternative in 2026 — fastCRW (Self-Host, Compatibility Matrix)
Exa vs Tavily — Neural Search vs Agent Web Access (2026)
Exa and Tavily are the two most-compared AI/RAG search APIs. Honest head-to-head on retrieval model, pricing, latency, endpoints, and free tiers — plus where fastCRW fits as the cheaper, self-hostable third option.
Serper Alternative in 2026 — fastCRW [Search + Scrape, Single Binary, Self-Host]
Looking for a Serper alternative that pairs Google SERP search with full-page scrape in one call? fastCRW has a public one-command search benchmark, a single AGPL-3.0 binary self-host, and a built-in MCP server.
DataForSEO vs SerpApi — SERP API Head-to-Head (2026)
DataForSEO is far cheaper (async $0.60/1k) with 24/7 support; SerpApi is premium ($9–25/1k) but real-time with legal indemnification and SOC 2. Honest feature, price, latency, and compliance comparison — plus where fastCRW fits.
Related hubs
