Head to head
MCP vs PyreCrawl
Same numbers we show everywhere else, lined up. Ratings come from users, the grade comes from our scanner, adoption comes from public registries.
No reviews yet
Web intelligence for AI agents: fetch, render, extract, research. x402 micropayments, no API keys.
Full listing
No reviews yet
Web scraping + research toolkit for AI agents: scrape, crawl, monitor URLs with anti-bot bypass.
Full listingThe short version
Neither has been reviewed yet, so the comparison rests on the scan and the public usage numbers. The safety scan favours PyreCrawl (92/100 against 62). MCP is hosted and callable through the gateway; PyreCrawl runs on your own machine.
| MCP | PyreCrawl | |
|---|---|---|
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Safety grade | C62/100 | A92/100 |
| Adoption | Growing | Growing |
| GitHub stars | 0 | 16 |
| Downloads / week | 47 | 153 |
| Runs where | Hosted (remote) | Your machine (local) |
| Gateway-ready | Yes | No |
| Tools | — | 13 |
| Write actions | — | — |
| Price per call | Free | Free |
| Licence | MIT | MIT |
| Last release | 2026-09-17 | 2026-09-19 |
| Category | Scraping and browsing | Scraping and browsing |