Pick Exa if search quality matters most and you want control over speed versus depth, especially for company or people lookups. Pick Tavily if your agent also needs to extract or crawl whole sites and you want built-in safeguards on what goes in and out. Both publish strong benchmarks, so run your own queries through each.
An AI agent is only as useful as what it can find. Give it stale or messy web results and it'll confidently build on bad information. That's why the search layer you plug in matters more than most builders expect, and why this pair keeps coming up when developers wire agents to the live web.
The two take different routes to the same goal. One treats search as the product and gives you dials to tune it. The other treats the web as something to fetch, clean, crawl and guard before it reaches your model.
Two ways to hand an agent the web
The search-first option names four APIs on its home page: Search, Contents, Agent and Monitors. Around those sit Websets, a Library and a connector product. It's built for developers who want to shape the search itself, with category filters such as Companies, People and Financials.
The web access layer lists five endpoints: Search, Extract, Research, Crawl and Map. Results come back as clean content ready for an LLM. Its pitch is that you get search, extraction and crawling behind one API, with security checks on every request.
Neither approach is better in the abstract. The question is whether your agent mostly asks questions of the web, or mostly needs to pull whole sites apart.
Seven areas, one table
| Area | Exa | Tavily |
|---|---|---|
| Product shape | Search, Contents, Agent and Monitors APIs, plus Websets and a Library | Search, Extract, Research, Crawl and Map endpoints |
| Search control | Lite, Auto and Deep search types, with stated latencies of 450ms, 1s and about 10s; categories such as News, Companies, People and Financials | Options such as search depth, max results and an include-answer setting |
| Site crawling | Contents API returns page content for results; no crawl or map endpoint named on the home page | Crawl pulls content from entire websites; Map discovers URLs across a site |
| Safety layer | Not a headline; links to a Trust Center and Security page | Describes blocking PII leakage, prompt injection and malicious sources |
| Getting started | Quickstart with Python, JavaScript and cURL; integrations for ChatGPT and Codex, Claude Code and OpenAI SDK | One-step MCP install for Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and OpenCode; a try-without-a-key option |
| Benchmarks cited | Charts itself against Perplexity, Brave and Parallel on its own benchmarks | Cites its own Company Search benchmark with a methodology link |
| Scale claims | Joined by 900,000+ developers, per its home page | Trusted by 3M+ developers, per its home page |
Whose benchmark should you believe?
Both vendors show you a chart where they come out ahead. That's normal marketing, but it means neither chart settles anything for you.
The search-first vendor's benchmark puts its latest model against Perplexity, Brave and Parallel, and its site says it tops public evals and has the largest index of public web and private information. The other vendor's benchmark tests company research, with a link to its methodology. They're measuring different things, picked by the people being measured.
So treat both charts as a reason to shortlist, not a reason to choose. The honest split between them isn't about who scores higher. It's that one sells search as a tunable product with speed tiers, while the other bundles crawling and mapping alongside search.
Tuning search versus crawling whole sites
When you want dials on the search itself
Three search types, Lite, Auto and Deep, come with stated latencies of 450ms, 1s and about 10s. That lets you trade speed for depth per request, which is handy when one part of your agent needs a quick answer and another can wait for a thorough one. The category filters are the other draw: if your agent researches companies or people, being able to aim the search at those categories is a clear advantage.
What its home page doesn't name is a crawl or map endpoint. The Contents API returns page content for search results, but if you need to walk an entire site, look at whether that covers your case before you commit.
When your agent needs whole sites, not just answers
Crawl and Map are the difference here. Crawl extracts content from entire websites, and Map discovers the URLs across a site. If you're building something that reads documentation, audits a competitor's site or ingests a knowledge base, those two endpoints save you stitching a scraper onto a search API.
Its search options are simpler on the page: search depth, max results and an include-answer setting appear in its home-page example. Its site doesn't state latency tiers the way the other vendor does.
Safety, setup and your first hour in the code
Safety is the loudest difference on the home pages. The web access layer shows an example query blocked for PII and describes blocking prompt injection and malicious sources. If your agent handles customer data or acts on what it reads, that's worth weighing. The search-first vendor doesn't make safety a headline, though it links a Trust Center and Security page you can read.
Setup looks easy on both. One offers a docs quickstart with Python, JavaScript and cURL examples, plus integrations for ChatGPT and Codex, Claude Code and OpenAI SDK. The other offers a one-step MCP install for Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and OpenCode, and a way to try it without an API key. Its site also states a free plan; the search-first vendor's home page doesn't state one.
Want AI doing the heavy lifting in your marketing?
I build the systems that handle the boring 80 percent, so you get your week back. Done properly, with the human kept in.
If you're still mapping the wider field, our roundup of other web access APIs for agents goes further, and the developer data and IT tools lists collect related tools in one place.
Four other search and scrape APIs
Brave Search API
Best for: A search API running on Brave's own index; the vendor says it ranked first in independent testing.
Serper
Best for: Google results through an API, covering Search, Images, News, Maps, Places, Videos, Shopping, Scholar and Patents, in 1-2 seconds per the vendor.
Firecrawl
Best for: Open-source search and scraping that returns markdown, JSON or screenshots, with more sources through Alexandria, its site says.
Linkup
Best for: Teams wanting Fetch, Search and Research through an API or inside their own cloud, with control over the index, sources and freshness.
Do you make a search or web data API for AI agents? Tool makers can ask to be considered for a featured place on this page.
The verdict for builders
Go with Exa if search quality and control over speed versus depth matter most, especially for company or people lookups. Go with Tavily if your agent also needs to extract or crawl whole sites and you want input safeguards built in. Both vendors post strong numbers on their own benchmarks, so the deciding step is yours: run the same set of real queries from your product through each one and compare what comes back.
Want your tool on this list? Featured spots and reviews here are paid partnerships. Here's how to partner with me.
Frequently asked questions
Can the search-first API crawl a whole website?
Its home page doesn't name a crawl or map endpoint. Its Contents API returns page content for search results. If walking entire sites is central to your agent, the other option lists Crawl and Map endpoints for that job.
Which one is safer to plug into an agent?
The web access layer makes safety a headline, describing blocks on PII leakage, prompt injection and malicious sources. The search-first vendor links a Trust Center and Security page instead. Read both before you connect customer data.
Do they work with Claude Code and Codex?
Yes, both name them. One lists integrations for ChatGPT and Codex, Claude Code and OpenAI SDK. The other offers a one-step MCP install for Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and OpenCode.
Is there a free plan?
One of them states a free plan on its site and lets you try it without an API key. The search-first vendor's home page doesn't state a free plan, so check its site before you sign up.
Should I trust their benchmark charts?
Use them to shortlist, not to decide. Each vendor picks a comparison where it comes out ahead, and they measure different things. Running your own queries through both tells you far more.
