Firecrawl MCP Server vs exa
In run 20260717T113200Z-7113, Firecrawl MCP Server passed 8 of 8 applicable suite tasks (median tool-call latency 320 ms) and exa passed 7 of 7 (median 221 ms). Both received byte-identical task inputs under identical timeout, retry, and concurrency rules.
| Firecrawl MCP Server Tested | exa Tested | |
|---|---|---|
| Results | ||
| Suite success rate | 100% (8 applicable tasks) | 100% (7 applicable tasks) |
| Performance | ||
| Median latency (p50) | 320 ms | 221 ms ▲ leads |
| Tail latency (p95) | 1938 ms | 462 ms ▲ leads |
| Cost | ||
| Cost per task | ~$0.014 (4 credits) | ~$0.007 (1 requests) |
| Capabilities | ||
| Suite task types supported | scrape_markdown, web_search, structured_extract ▲ leads | scrape_markdown, web_search |
Cost is shown in each service's native billing unit and is never compared numerically across services. Full methodology: how these numbers are produced.