Firecrawl vs Exa
Firecrawl versus Exa for AI agents — hit@k accuracy, freshness lag, cost per verified-correct answer, and agent-readiness, scored against golden truth.
Firecrawl and Exa are compared on the verified web_extraction-2026-q2 snapshot below; they are not both scored on web_search this snapshot.
Head to Head — Web Extraction
| Metric | Firecrawl | Exa | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| fidelity 0-1 | 0.66 | 0.74 | Exa |
| phrase recall | 0.58 | 0.67 | Exa |
| boilerplate excl. | 0.64 | 0.76 | Exa |
| cost/correct $ | $0.0294 | $0.0047 | Exa |
| coverage % | 97.3 | 98.7 | Exa |
Which Should an Agent Pick?
For accuracy-first agent workloads, compare hit@5 (the only web-search metric measured this snapshot — cost, freshness and latency are pending). Both Firecrawl and Exa should be evaluated on your own query mix; web_search figures are over a 299-query public split (n=299).
Illustrative prototype. No verified vendor run has been published yet; every figure here is a placeholder and must not be cited as a measured result. Numbers are replaced when a snapshot’s first full run lands.