Keiro vs Firecrawl (2026): search + extract vs extract-only
Keiro does cited search AND clean extraction in one API at $0.50/1k; Firecrawl is best-in-class at turning a known URL into markdown but doesn't find pages. Head-to-head.
TL;DR — Keiro and Firecrawl solve overlapping but different problems. Firecrawl turns a known URL into clean markdown (extraction). Keiro does that AND finds the pages in the first place (cited search) — in one API at $0.50/1k with an MCP server. Pick Firecrawl for pure extraction of known URLs at scale; pick Keiro when the agent also needs to discover and cite pages.
The one-line difference
Firecrawl's primitive is extraction. Keiro's is search, with extraction as one endpoint. That sounds small; it changes what you have to build.
- Firecrawl: you hand it URLs → it returns clean markdown. You still need a way to find the URLs (a search API, a sitemap, a scrape). Cost scales with pages.
- Keiro:
fastfinds and cites the pages,extractcleans a known URL,contentreturns full text + embeddings for RAG — one vendor, one Bearer header.
Head-to-head
| Dimension | Keiro | Firecrawl |
|---|---|---|
| Find pages for a query | ✅ fast (1 credit, ~1s) | ❌ bring your own URLs |
| Clean a known URL → markdown | ✅ extract (3 credits) | ✅ best-in-class for hard SPAs |
| Full text + embeddings (RAG) | ✅ content (3 credits) | ⚠️ markdown only; you embed |
| Multi-step research | ✅ agentic (20 credits) | ❌ |
| MCP server | ✅ keirolabs.space/mcp | ⚠️ partial |
| Cost model | per request ($0.50/1k search) | per page (~$8/1k+) |
| Primitive | index + on-demand extract | scraper fleet |
| Live-scrape risk | low (retrieval + on-demand extract) | higher (browser per page) |
When to pick which
- Pick Firecrawl if your whole job is "I have a list of URLs, give me clean markdown," and the pages include hard JS-heavy SPAs where their browser-fleet polish matters.
- Pick Keiro if you're building an agent or RAG pipeline that needs to find pages, cite them, and read them — and you'd rather have one API for search + extract + embeddings than a search vendor plus an extraction vendor.
Migrating from Firecrawl to Keiro
Where you called Firecrawl with a URL, call Keiro extract with the same URL. Where you were manually hunting for URLs to feed Firecrawl, replace that with fast. Auth moves to a Bearer header (keiro_...).
# search
curl -X POST https://api.keirolabs.cloud/api/v2/search/fast \
-H "Authorization: Bearer keiro_..." -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"query":"EU AI Act 2026 changes","maxResults":5}'
# extract a known URL
curl -X POST https://api.keirolabs.cloud/api/v2/extract \
-H "Authorization: Bearer keiro_..." -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"url":"https://example.com/policy"}'
The honest verdict
Firecrawl is genuinely the best at one thing: extraction of known, hard pages. Keiro is the better default for agent/RAG stacks because it covers search + extract + RAG in one cited, cheap API. For most teams, "I also need to find the pages" is the deciding factor — and that's Keiro.
In plain questions.
Is Keiro better than Firecrawl?
For agent/RAG stacks that need to find pages and cite them, yes — Keiro does search + extract + RAG in one API at $0.50/1k. Firecrawl is better for pure extraction of known, hard JS-heavy pages.
Does Keiro replace Firecrawl's extraction?
For most pages, yes — the extract endpoint returns clean markdown + metadata from a URL (3 credits). For the hardest SPAs behind interaction, Firecrawl's browser-fleet polish can still edge it.
Which is cheaper, Keiro or Firecrawl?
Keiro search is $0.50/1k vs Firecrawl's per-page extraction (~$8/1k+). The bigger saving: Keiro search replaces the manual URL-hunting Firecrawl forces on you.
Do both have MCP servers?
Keiro does — keirolabs.space/mcp exposes all endpoints as agent tools. Firecrawl has partial integrations.