firecrawl vs exa-agent
Company funding data, measured head-to-head on the same company cohort: the verdict is split — firecrawl returns more correct latest stages end to end, while exa-agent is more accurate on the stages it does return. Measured on the funding enrichment board: rounds announced more than 30 days ago. Recent rounds are scored separately on the freshness board. Every stage judged against source-verified funding events; latency and cost measured beside accuracy. Not vendor claims.
firecrawl or exa-agent — measured winner per axis
| Axis | firecrawl | exa-agent | Measured winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Correct latest stage end to end (correct stage yield) | 92.3% | 88.7% | firecrawl |
| Right when a stage is returned (accuracy when present) | 92.3% | 93.0% | exa-agent |
| Funding fields returned (field coverage) | 93.3% | 67.3% | firecrawl |
| Companies resolved (resolution rate) | 100.0% | 100.0% | tie |
| Speed (median latency) | 109,835 ms | 26,549 ms | exa-agent |
| Cost (cohort, self-serve rates) (estimated cost) | $42 | $30 | exa-agent |
Contact data, intent, and integrations are not measured here — this is the company-funding slice only. Full leaderboard, methodology, and per-company evidence →
firecrawl vs exa-agent — common questions
firecrawl vs exa-agent: which has better funding data?
On measured correct stage yield (right latest funding stage across all companies with a verified reference), firecrawl leads: firecrawl 92.3% vs exa-agent 88.7%, judged against source-verified funding events on the same company cohort. On accuracy when a stage is returned, exa-agent leads (92.3% vs 93.0%).
Is firecrawl or exa-agent cheaper for funding data?
At public self-serve rates for the same benchmark run: firecrawl $42 vs exa-agent $30 — exa-agent is cheaper. Weigh cost against correct stage yield: a stale stage misroutes accounts, which costs more than the API call.
Which is faster, firecrawl or exa-agent?
Median request latency on the same run: firecrawl 109,835 ms vs exa-agent 26,549 ms — exa-agent is faster. Latency matters when funding enrichment runs inline in an agent or product flow; for batch scoring it usually doesn't.
Where does this comparison data come from?
The independent company-funding benchmark on this site: both providers received the same company domains, responses were normalized to one canonical funding-stage contract, and each returned stage was compared to a source-verified reference (company newsroom, wire announcement, or filing). No vendor pays for inclusion or rank; inputs, outputs, and evaluation code are public.