Best Web Scraping APIs to Bypass Akamai: July 2026 Benchmark

Scrapfly is the best web scraping API for bypassing Akamai, with a 98% success rate across 8 web scraping APIs benchmarked against live Akamai-protected sites in July 2026. 3 of the 8 cleared above 90%. The benchmark is open source on GitHub, refreshed twice a month, with no sponsors and no affiliate links.

Akamai Bot Manager runs at the edge on Akamai's globally distributed cloud and CDN platform, and its detection reflects that scale. A heavily obfuscated JavaScript sensor fingerprints the browser and streams behavioral telemetry back to Akamai, and Akamai uses cookies such as _abck together with that client sensor data when evaluating a browser session. Akamai uses obfuscated client-side detection code whose implementation can change without notice, so bypasses built against an older version tend to degrade fast.

Ranked by live Akamai success rate, best first:

1. 🥇 Scrapfly: 98% success on Akamai
2. 🥈 Firecrawl: 95% success on Akamai
3. 🥉 WebScrapingAPI: 91% success on Akamai

Top 6 web scraping APIs for Akamai, ranked

Akamai protects one clean benchmark target, Booking.com. Its per-target ranking lives on the Booking.com page rather than being duplicated here.

#	Service	Success	Speed	Cost/1k		Code
1 🥇	Scrapfly	98%	6.1s	$2.8	(237) ★ 4.9	code
2 🥈	Firecrawl	95%	5.2s	$6.56	n/a	code
3 🥉	WebScrapingAPI	91%	25.6s	$2.71	n/a	code
4	Scrapingbee	23%	4.0s	$3.26	(137) ★ 4.9	code
5	Scrapingdog	6%	11.4s	$5.0	n/a	code
6	Scrapingant	1%	16.1s	$1.9	n/a	code

Data range Jul 17 to Jul 31

Ranking history: web scraping APIs vs Akamai over time

The 6 web scraping APIs for Akamai, reviewed

1. Scrapfly: 98% success on Akamai

Akamai uses obfuscated client-side detection code whose implementation can change without notice, so any approach based on replaying a captured payload has a short shelf life. Scrapfly cleared 98% of requests here by running the actual sensor JavaScript in a genuine browser and letting it generate its own telemetry, rather than reverse-engineering the current obfuscation and faking the output.

At $2.80 per 1,000 successful requests and 6.1s average response time, the figures hold up well for an Akamai-capable API. The 98% success rate is the headline for this run.

Pros:

• Highest success rate in the test, solving Akamai's sensor challenge in a real browser
• Only charges for successful scrapes, so failed requests cost nothing
• First-class SDKs for Python, TypeScript, Go, and Rust, plus a Scrapy extension
• One asp flag turns on the full anti-bot stack, so there is little to tune

Cons:

• The entry (Discovery) plan caps concurrency at 5 requests, so high-throughput jobs need a higher tier
• The free tier is a one-time 1,000 credits, enough to prototype and smoke-test but not to benchmark at volume
• The dashboard could be more polished for usage monitoring and debugging

2. Firecrawl: 95% success on Akamai

Firecrawl's differentiator is output: it returns structured Markdown rather than raw HTML, which can save a parsing step for LLM and RAG pipelines. Its current Akamai success, speed, and cost are shown in the live scorecard above.

Pros:

• Returns LLM-ready markdown, saving a parsing step for AI and RAG pipelines
• Runs a real browser, which helps produce the fresh browser and behavioral signals Akamai's sensor evaluates

Cons:

• Akamai's sensor and cookie validation is a demanding target for any provider, check the live scorecard for current pass rate
• Pricing runs at a premium compared to lighter-weight scraping APIs, cost is a recurring theme in user reviews
• Runs a full browser per page, which adds overhead compared to HTTP-based APIs, check the live scorecard for current speed

3. WebScrapingAPI: 91% success on Akamai

WebScrapingAPI's pull is price: a low cost per request, with broad language SDK support. Akamai protects a lot of high-traffic retail, travel, and ticketing sites where timing can matter. Its current Akamai success, speed, and cost are shown in the live scorecard above, compare those values on cost per successful request before choosing it.

Pros:

• Low cost per request
• Broad language SDK range

Cons:

• Akamai's soft blocked and interstitial responses make it easy to keep paying for empty 200s unless you check content
• Response time is shown in the live scorecard above, check it before committing to latency-sensitive jobs
• Customer support is a recurring complaint in user reviews

4. Scrapingbee: 23% success on Akamai

Scrapingbee offers JavaScript rendering for lighter targets, with a simple integration and a low sticker cost per request. Akamai's cookie and sensor evaluation is a demanding target for any provider. Its current Akamai success, speed, and cost are shown in the live scorecard above, compare those values on cost per successful request before choosing it.

Pros:

• JavaScript rendering for lighter, less-protected targets
• Low sticker cost per request

Cons:

• Akamai's cookie and sensor evaluation is a demanding target for any provider, check the live scorecard for current pass rate
• Credits burn quickly once JavaScript rendering or premium proxies are enabled
• No mid-usage plan between the small and large tiers

5. Scrapingdog: 6% success on Akamai

Scrapingdog offers the cheapest entry pricing in the group and a simple API, without first party SDKs. Akamai's fingerprinting is a demanding bar for any provider to clear. Its current Akamai success, speed, and cost are shown in the live scorecard above, compare those values on cost per successful request before choosing it.

Pros:

• Cheapest entry pricing
• Simple API

Cons:

• Akamai's fingerprint and sensor checks are a demanding bar to clear, check the live scorecard for current pass rate
• No first party SDKs
• Customer support is the most common complaint in user reviews

6. Scrapingant: 1% success on Akamai

Scrapingant is a lightweight, low sticker price API with JavaScript rendering and session support, aimed at smaller jobs where budget matters more than a deep feature set. Akamai's obfuscated sensor is a demanding target for any provider. Its current Akamai success, speed, and cost are shown in the live scorecard above, compare those values on cost per successful request before choosing it.

Pros:

• Low sticker price
• JavaScript rendering included

Cons:

• Feature set is thinner than full-featured competitors, which can mean more manual handling for complex sessions
• Akamai's soft blocked responses hide failed requests, which it still charges for, unless you check content
• Small provider with a thin public track record

What makes Akamai hard to scrape

Akamai Bot Manager sits on top of the same edge network Akamai uses for CDN and DDoS protection, which gives it visibility into a large volume of traffic across many industries. That scale funds a detection system with several independent parts, and Akamai's client side detection code can change without notice.

Obfuscated sensor JavaScript. Akamai injects a heavily obfuscated script that fingerprints the browser and streams behavioral telemetry (mouse movement, timing, touch events, canvas and WebGL output) back to Akamai as an encoded payload. Akamai uses obfuscated client side detection code whose implementation can change without notice, so static or reverse-engineered implementations of the sensor can go stale without warning.

The _abck cookie. Akamai uses cookies such as _abck together with client sensor data when evaluating a browser session. A mismatched or missing _abck cookie, or one that isn't refreshed correctly across a session, can get a request soft blocked or degraded rather than outright rejected, which makes the failure mode easy to miss if you're only checking status codes.

Fingerprinting. Akamai can use TLS, HTTP header, browser, connection, and behavioral fingerprints. A client that gets the JavaScript sensor right but produces mismatched fingerprints elsewhere in the stack can still get flagged, because these signals are evaluated together.

Interstitial challenges. Depending on customer configuration, suspicious traffic may receive a CAPTCHA, cryptographic challenge, or another mitigation response instead of a hard block. These pages can return a 200 status, so a scraper that only checks for success codes can log a full run as successful while collecting nothing but challenge pages.

The combination of detection code that can change without notice and multiple layers of browser, connection, and behavioral signals is what separates Akamai from anti-bots that ship one mechanism and leave it alone. Staying ahead of it takes continuous work, not a one-time bypass

How to choose a web scraping API for Akamai

Because Akamai's detection code can change without notice, start by narrowing to the providers still clearing it this run (the top of the ranked table), then choose within that set.

• Reliability first. Scrapfly leads on Akamai, check the live scorecard for its current rate. Because Akamai's detection code can change without notice, a provider's standing can shift between benchmark runs, so it's worth re-checking before committing to production work.
• Cost or speed. Among the providers still clearing Akamai this run, sort the table by cost per successful request or by speed and pick accordingly. Don't build on the ones that fail, only 3 of 8 clear at least half their requests this run.

Avoid deciding on headline price. Akamai's soft blocked and interstitial responses mean a low-cost API can return responses that look correct while delivering nothing useful, so its real cost per usable result is far higher than its rate card suggests. Judge on cost per successful request.

How we benchmark web scraping APIs against Akamai

Every API is tested against the same live Akamai-protected URLs at the same time, 1,000+ requests per provider, twice a month. We pay for the plans ourselves. No affiliate links, no sponsors, no providers with early access to results. The full benchmark is open source on GitHub, so you can reproduce every result yourself.

One thing worth noting about benchmarking Akamai specifically: success rate is measured on response content, not HTTP status codes. Akamai's interstitial challenge pages and soft blocked responses both return a 200, so a test that only checked for a 200 would overstate results significantly. We verify that responses contain the expected content before counting them as successful.

The current Akamai benchmark uses Booking.com as its clean target. Results reflect that deployment, another Akamai-protected site may use different settings or response actions, so test your target before scaling. Latest data: Jul 17 to Jul 31, 2026.

Frequently asked questions about scraping Akamai

Can web scraping APIs reliably bypass Akamai in 2026?

A few can. In this benchmark, 3 cleared above 90% and 3 cleared above 50%. The rest failed most requests or all of them. Akamai's detection code can change without notice, so the reliable tier here needs re-checking against the live data.

Why does Akamai sometimes return a 200 response even when blocking?

That's intentional. Akamai's soft block responses and its interactive challenge pages, a CAPTCHA, cryptographic challenge, or another mitigation response, depending on customer configuration, both come back with a 200 status. If a scraper only checks HTTP status codes, it will keep running and collecting challenge or empty content without realizing it. Checking that responses actually contain expected content, not just a 200 status, is essential when working with Akamai-protected targets.

What's the cheapest web scraping API that actually works on Akamai?

Sort the ranked table by cost per successful request and read down to the first provider still clearing Akamai this run, that's the cheapest option that actually delivers. Lower-priced options in the ranking fail too many requests for their rate to be meaningful, and Akamai's soft blocking hides those failures unless you check response content.

Why do some APIs work on other anti-bots but fail on Akamai?

Because Akamai's obfuscated sensor JavaScript can change without notice, a bypass has to keep pace with the current version of the script rather than replay a payload captured from a previous one. Akamai evaluates browser and behavioral telemetry, so simple static payload replay is brittle, live browser execution is one way to produce fresh, consistent signals.

A static sensor payload or fingerprint can become inconsistent when Akamai's client-side detection changes, so results depend on keeping pace with the current version.

Does Akamai's detection apply to every request, or just the first one?

Akamai can evaluate cookies, client-sensor data, and behavioral signals across a browser session, not only at the first request. The exact checks depend on the site's configuration, so keep browser state consistent and verify expected content rather than relying on status codes alone.

How often is this benchmark updated?

Twice a month against the same live targets, 1,000+ requests per API each run. Results are published after each run with no adjustments. The code is on GitHub if you want to verify any figure.

Conclusion

Akamai's scale and detection code that can change without notice make it one of the more demanding anti-bots in this series to stay ahead of: a provider that clears it reliably today has to keep resolving the current version of the sensor challenge, not lean on a bypass built against an older one. If the target is Akamai-protected, start with Scrapfly, the current leader on the live table, and for cost or speed, choose among the providers still clearing Akamai this run.

One thing worth doing regardless of which provider you choose: verify your results on response content, not status codes. Akamai's soft blocked and interstitial challenge responses both return a 200, and its sensor script can change without notice. The benchmark refreshes twice a month, so check it before committing.

Other anti-bots: Cloudflare · DataDome · PerimeterX · Imperva · Kasada  ·  Akamai targets: Booking.com  ·  Hub: All anti-bot benchmarks