| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Paid |
| Capabilities | 11 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Automatically extracts structured data from arbitrary web pages without requiring CSS selectors, regex patterns, or manual rules. Uses computer vision to identify and classify page elements (text blocks, tables, images, metadata) and NLP to map them to domain-specific schemas (articles, products, organizations, events, discussions). Processes one page per API call, consuming 1 credit per extraction or 2 credits when routed through datacenter proxies for geo-spoofing or IP rotation.
Unique: Uses computer vision (image analysis) + NLP jointly to identify page structure without CSS selectors or regex, enabling extraction from pages with dynamic or non-standard HTML. Automatically detects content type (article vs. product vs. organization) and applies type-specific schema extraction in a single API call.
vs alternatives: Faster to deploy than Selenium/Puppeteer + regex pipelines because it requires no rule maintenance; more flexible than CSS-selector-based tools (Scrapy, Beautiful Soup) when page structure varies across domains.
Crawlbot spiders websites across 50 to 50,000+ URLs, automatically following links and discovering pages within a domain or URL pattern. Applies the Extract API to each crawled page, returning structured data for all discovered pages. Crawling itself consumes zero credits; only the extraction of crawled pages consumes credits (1 per page). Supports configurable crawl depth, URL filtering, and crawl scheduling via the dashboard or API.
Unique: Decouples crawling (free) from extraction (paid), allowing users to discover site structure without cost and then selectively extract high-value pages. Combines web spidering with rule-less extraction, eliminating the need to maintain separate crawl rules and extraction rules.
vs alternatives: More cost-efficient than Scrapy + regex pipelines for large sites because crawling is free and extraction is pay-per-page; more maintainable than custom crawlers because extraction rules adapt automatically to page structure changes.
Knowledge Graph indexes entities (organizations, articles, products, discussions, events) across multiple languages and regions. Article/News index (1.6B+ records) includes content from global news sources in multiple languages. Organization index (246M+ records) includes companies from multiple regions with localized data (e.g., revenue in local currency, regional employee counts). Product index (3M+ records) includes products from global e-commerce sites. No explicit documentation of supported languages or regions, but scale suggests broad coverage.
Unique: Knowledge Graph indexes 1.6B+ articles in multiple languages and 246M+ organizations across regions, enabling global entity search without requiring separate language-specific APIs or manual translation.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than single-language APIs (e.g., English-only news APIs) because it covers global content; more cost-effective than building separate language-specific crawlers because data is pre-indexed.
Natural Language API extracts named entities (people, organizations, locations, products), relationships between entities (e.g., 'person works at organization'), and topic-level sentiment from raw text documents (1–10,000 characters). Uses NLP models to identify entity types, resolve entity references, and infer relationships without requiring labeled training data or custom entity definitions. Each document consumes 1 credit regardless of length (within the 1–10k character range).
Unique: Combines entity extraction, relationship inference, and sentiment analysis in a single API call without requiring separate models or training data. Automatically links extracted entities to Diffbot's 10B+ entity Knowledge Graph for entity resolution and enrichment.
vs alternatives: Simpler to integrate than spaCy + custom relationship extraction models because it requires no training data or model fine-tuning; more comprehensive than regex-based entity extraction because it infers relationships and resolves entity references.
Knowledge Graph API provides query access to Diffbot's pre-indexed database of 10B+ entities across six types: Organizations (246M+ records with 50+ fields), Articles/News (1.6B+ records), Products (3M+ pre-crawled retail products), Discussions (forum/review data with entity matching), Events (23k+ normalized records), and People (scale unknown). Queries use Diffbot Query Language (DQL), a custom SQL-like syntax. Each entity record export consumes 25 credits. Supports filtering, sorting, and aggregation across entity types.
Unique: Pre-indexed 10B+ entity database with cross-entity relationships (e.g., people linked to organizations, organizations linked to news articles and funding events) enables multi-hop queries without requiring external knowledge base construction. DQL query language provides SQL-like filtering and aggregation without requiring REST API pagination loops.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than single-source APIs (e.g., LinkedIn API for people, Crunchbase for companies) because it integrates data across news, products, discussions, and events; cheaper than building custom web crawlers to index equivalent data, though per-entity export cost is high for bulk operations.
Enhance API enriches existing person or organization records by querying the Knowledge Graph and appending additional fields (revenue, locations, employees, funding, executives for organizations; employment history, education, social profiles for people). Input is a person name/email or organization name/domain; output is enriched record with 50+ fields for organizations or equivalent for people. Each enrichment consumes 1 credit (same as Natural Language API). Integrations available via Excel, Google Sheets, and Zapier for non-technical users.
Unique: Provides low-code enrichment via Excel/Sheets/Zapier integrations, enabling non-technical users to enrich datasets without API integration. Leverages pre-indexed Knowledge Graph to avoid real-time web scraping, providing faster enrichment with consistent data quality.
vs alternatives: Faster and cheaper than building custom web scrapers for company intelligence; more comprehensive than single-source APIs (e.g., Clearbit, Hunter) because it aggregates data across news, funding, products, and discussions; easier to integrate for non-technical users via Sheets/Excel.
Diffbot uses a credit-based billing model where each API operation consumes a fixed number of credits: Extract (1 credit), Extract with proxy (2 credits), Natural Language (1 credit), Knowledge Graph export (25 credits), Enhance (1 credit). Monthly plans (Free, Startup, Plus, Enterprise) provide credit allotments at different per-credit rates ($0.001–$0.0009). Overage charges apply at the plan's per-credit rate. Free tier (10,000 credits/month, 5 calls/min) is perpetual with no trial expiration. No long-term contracts required; monthly billing.
Unique: Credit-based model decouples API operations from pricing, allowing different operations (Extract, Natural Language, Knowledge Graph export) to have different credit costs. Perpetual free tier with no trial expiration or credit card requirement lowers barrier to entry for small projects.
vs alternatives: More transparent than per-request pricing because credit costs are fixed and documented; more flexible than subscription-only models because overage charges allow usage to scale beyond monthly allotment without contract renegotiation.
Diffbot provides native integrations with Microsoft Excel and Google Sheets, allowing non-technical users to enrich datasets without API integration. Excel integration includes a visual query editor for Knowledge Graph searches and data enrichment. Google Sheets integration supports custom Diffbot Query Language (DQL) formulas for entity lookups and enrichment. Zapier integration enables trigger-based enrichment workflows (e.g., enrich new Salesforce leads with company data). All integrations consume credits at the same rate as direct API calls.
Unique: Brings Knowledge Graph enrichment to non-technical users via familiar tools (Excel, Sheets) without requiring API integration or custom code. Visual query editor in Excel abstracts DQL syntax, lowering barrier to entry for business users.
vs alternatives: More accessible than direct API integration for non-technical users; faster to deploy than building custom Python/Node.js scripts; integrates with existing Zapier workflows for teams already using no-code automation.
+3 more capabilities
Manages conversation history as immutable thread objects stored server-side, where each message appends to a thread rather than requiring clients to maintain conversation state. Threads persist across API calls and sessions, enabling stateless client implementations. The architecture decouples conversation management from model invocation, allowing assistants to be reused across multiple independent threads without state collision.
Unique: Server-side thread abstraction eliminates client-side conversation state management; threads are first-class API objects with immutable append-only semantics, not just message arrays. This differs from stateless LLM APIs where clients must manage context windows and history truncation.
vs alternatives: Eliminates context window management burden compared to raw LLM APIs (e.g., Claude API, GPT-4 completions), but adds latency and cost overhead vs. in-memory conversation state in frameworks like LangChain
Provides a managed Python 3.11 execution environment accessible via the Code Interpreter tool, where assistants can write and execute arbitrary Python code with access to common libraries (pandas, numpy, matplotlib, scikit-learn). Code runs in isolated sandboxes with file I/O, plotting, and data visualization capabilities. Execution results (stdout, stderr, generated files) are returned to the assistant for further processing.
Unique: Managed Python sandbox integrated directly into the agent loop — assistants can iteratively write, execute, and refine code without external compute provisioning. Execution results feed back into the LLM context, enabling self-correcting workflows. Differs from Replit or Jupyter APIs which require explicit session management.
vs alternatives: Simpler than provisioning Jupyter kernels or Lambda functions for code execution, but slower and less flexible than local Python execution; better for lightweight analysis than heavy ML workloads
OpenAI Assistants scores higher at 76/100 vs Diffbot at 56/100. However, Diffbot offers a free tier which may be better for getting started.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
When an assistant calls a tool, the run enters a 'requires_action' state. Clients must submit tool call results via the submit_tool_outputs API, which resumes the run with the tool results injected into context. This enables iterative workflows where assistants can call tools, receive results, and refine responses based on results. Tool results are stored in the thread and visible to subsequent runs, enabling multi-turn tool-assisted reasoning.
Unique: Tool results are submitted explicitly via API, not returned in-band — enables clients to process, validate, or transform results before injection. Runs pause in 'requires_action' state, giving clients full control over tool execution and result handling.
vs alternatives: More flexible than automatic tool execution (clients can implement custom logic), but requires more client-side code than frameworks like LangChain where tool execution is automatic; enables external tool integration without modifying assistant code
Assistants can be created from scratch or cloned from existing assistants, copying all configuration (instructions, tools, model, file attachments). Cloning enables template-based assistant creation where a base assistant is configured once and then cloned for different use cases or users. Cloned assistants are independent — changes to one don't affect others. This reduces setup overhead for creating similar assistants.
Unique: Assistants are cloneable objects — configuration can be copied to create new assistants without manual setup. Enables template-based assistant creation and multi-tenant provisioning patterns.
vs alternatives: Simpler than manually creating assistants with identical configuration, but less flexible than parameterized templates; no built-in versioning or rollback compared to infrastructure-as-code approaches
Files uploaded to assistants are stored in OpenAI's managed file storage and associated with assistants or threads. Files can be deleted explicitly via API, and OpenAI automatically cleans up files after 30 days of inactivity. File storage is charged per file per assistant; deleting unused files reduces costs. Files can be reused across multiple assistants and threads, but each association incurs a separate storage charge.
Unique: Files are managed server-side with automatic cleanup after 30 days — no manual file system management required. Files are associated with assistants and charged per association, enabling cost tracking at the file level.
vs alternatives: Simpler than managing files in external storage (S3, GCS), but less flexible and more expensive for high-volume file usage; automatic cleanup reduces manual maintenance but limits retention control
The File Search tool indexes uploaded files (PDFs, text, code) using OpenAI's embedding model and enables assistants to retrieve relevant passages via semantic search. Files are chunked, embedded, and stored in a managed vector index. When an assistant queries the index, it retrieves the most relevant chunks based on cosine similarity, then includes them in the prompt context. This enables RAG-style retrieval without managing embeddings or vector databases.
Unique: Fully managed vector indexing and retrieval without exposing embedding or vector database layers — files are indexed automatically on upload, and search is invoked implicitly when assistants reference file_search tool. Abstracts away Pinecone/Weaviate setup but sacrifices control over chunking and embedding strategies.
vs alternatives: Faster to implement than building custom RAG with LangChain + Pinecone, but less flexible; no control over chunk size, embedding model, or retrieval parameters compared to self-managed vector databases
Assistants can invoke multiple tools (Code Interpreter, File Search, custom functions) in parallel or sequence based on task requirements. Tool calls are defined via JSON schema (OpenAI function calling format), and the assistant decides which tools to invoke and in what order. Results from tool calls are fed back into the assistant's context, enabling iterative refinement. Supports both parallel execution (multiple tools called simultaneously) and sequential chaining (tool output feeds into next tool's input).
Unique: Tool invocation is driven by the LLM's reasoning — the assistant decides which tools to call, in what order, and with what parameters based on task context. Supports both parallel and sequential execution patterns. Differs from static tool pipelines (e.g., Zapier) where execution order is pre-defined.
vs alternatives: More flexible than hardcoded tool chains, but less predictable than explicit DAGs; requires careful prompt engineering to ensure correct tool selection vs. frameworks like LangChain where tool routing can be more explicit
Assistants can receive file attachments (PDFs, images, code, data files) within messages, which are automatically indexed and made available for retrieval or analysis. Files are stored in OpenAI's managed file storage and can be referenced by subsequent messages in the thread. The assistant can analyze file content via Code Interpreter, search file content via File Search, or reference files in function calls. Files persist within a thread and are accessible across multiple turns.
Unique: Files are first-class message attachments with automatic indexing and managed storage — no separate file management API required. Files persist in thread context and are automatically made available to all tools (Code Interpreter, File Search, function calls) without explicit routing.
vs alternatives: Simpler than managing files separately and passing file paths to tools; automatic indexing reduces setup vs. manual chunking and embedding, but less control over file processing compared to custom pipelines
+5 more capabilities