The honest comparison
webclaw vs Context.dev
Context.dev is a hosted web context API for scraping, crawling, search, screenshots, structured extraction, and brand data. Here is how it compares to webclaw.
Rust · AGPL-3.0 · self-hostable
One shared credit pool: a plain page is 1 credit, heavier work adds a few (JS render +2, protected site +9). Crawl, batch, search and MCP included.
Hosted API (proprietary)
Simple scrape, crawl, screenshot, and search requests use 1 credit. Browser actions use 2 credits. Structured extraction, brand, and style-guide requests use 10 credits. Failed or blocked requests are not billed.
Looking for a Context.dev alternative?
Looking for a Context.dev alternative you can self-host? Context.dev combines browser-based extraction, search, screenshots, and brand intelligence in a hosted API. webclaw covers the core scrape, crawl, search, and extract workflow while adding an open-source Rust engine, CLI access, batch scraping, and Firecrawl-compatible endpoints.
webclaw vs Context.dev feature comparison
Every core capability side by side. The webclaw column is highlighted; cells show exactly what each tool ships.
| Feature | webclaw | Context.dev |
|---|---|---|
| Scrape (HTML to markdown) | Yes | Yes |
| Crawl (BFS with depth control) | Yes | Yes |
| Batch (parallel multi-URL) | Yes | No |
| Search (web search + scrape) | Yes | Yes |
| Extract (LLM structured data) | Yes | Yes (10 credits) |
| Screenshot (full page) | Yes | Yes |
| Browser actions (click, type, scroll) | Yes | Yes (up to 5 on paid plans) |
| Handles bot-protected sites | Yes | Yes |
| JS rendering | Yes | Yes |
| PDF extraction | Yes | Yes |
| MCP server | Yes | Yes |
| CLI tool | Yes | No |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No |
| Open source (AGPL-3.0) | Yes | No |
| Credit multipliers | One pool. Page 1, +2 JS, +9 protected. | Actions 2 credits; extract, brand, and style guide 10 credits. |
Is webclaw cheaper than Context.dev?
webclaw bills from one credit pool: a plain page is 1 credit, heavier work adds a few. Compare the plans head to head, then read each credit model below.
| Plan | webclaw | Context.dev |
|---|---|---|
| Free option | 7-day free trial (card required), or self-host free | 250 personal or 500 work-email credits, one time |
| Starter | $19/mo · 10,000 credits | $25/mo · 10,000 credits |
| Growth | $49/mo · 100,000 credits | $149/mo · 200,000 credits |
| Pro | $99/mo · 250,000 credits | $499/mo · 1,000,000 credits |
webclaw credit model
One shared credit pool: a plain page is 1 credit, with small fixed add-ons for JS render (+2) and protected sites (+9). No separate proxy or JSON buckets.
Context.dev credit model
Simple scrape, crawl, screenshot, and search requests use 1 credit. Browser actions use 2 credits. Structured extraction, brand, and style-guide requests use 10 credits. Failed or blocked requests are not billed.
Context.dev strengths
- Brand, style-guide, logo, and font extraction in the same API
- Five official SDKs plus MCP support
- Browser actions and screenshots are built in
- Country targeting is available
- Failed and blocked requests are not billed
Context.dev limitations
- Hosted only, with no self-hosted edition
- No public CLI
- No parallel batch endpoint
- Structured extraction and brand requests cost 10 credits
- Free credits are one time rather than monthly
Which one should you use?
Use webclaw when
You need open-source self-hosting, a CLI, parallel batch scraping, Firecrawl-compatible endpoints, or a scraping-focused platform with one shared credit pool.
Use Context.dev when
You want brand intelligence, logos, fonts, style guides, and web extraction from one hosted API, or need its wider set of official SDKs.
webclaw vs Context.dev, answered
Is there a Context.dev alternative for LLMs and AI agents?
Looking for a Context.dev alternative you can self-host? Context.dev combines browser-based extraction, search, screenshots, and brand intelligence in a hosted API. webclaw covers the core scrape, crawl, search, and extract workflow while adding an open-source Rust engine, CLI access, batch scraping, and Firecrawl-compatible endpoints.
What is the difference between webclaw and Context.dev?
Context.dev is a hosted web context API for scraping, crawling, search, screenshots, structured extraction, and brand data. Here is how it compares to webclaw.
Is webclaw cheaper than Context.dev?
webclaw bills from one shared credit pool: a plain page is 1 credit, heavier work adds a few (JS render +2, protected site +9). Context.dev uses: Simple scrape, crawl, screenshot, and search requests use 1 credit. Browser actions use 2 credits. Structured extraction, brand, and style-guide requests use 10 credits. Failed or blocked requests are not billed.
When should I use Context.dev instead of webclaw?
You want brand intelligence, logos, fonts, style guides, and web extraction from one hosted API, or need its wider set of official SDKs.
See how it stacks up.
Cancel anytime. Run the same job on webclaw and Context.dev and compare for yourself.