Comparison
Webshotter vs Urlbox
Urlbox has been doing this for a decade and it shows: more output formats, more knobs, more integrations, and a long record of running them. The gap it leaves is the one we were built around.
Where we win
Emoji you chose
We run a separate browser per emoji set, so a 🚀 comes back looking like Apple's, Google's or Twitter's because you asked. Everyone else renders whatever colour font their Linux image happens to carry.
Byte-identical output
The same request against the same renderer version returns the same bytes. That is what makes a diff a real change rather than font drift.
Failures that say whose fault it is
A page that will not load is a 422 with a named reason. Our own capacity problems are a 503. You never have to guess which.
Where Urlbox wins
Breadth
More formats, more options, more years of edge cases found by other people.
Track record
They have run this at scale for longer than we have existed. If you are buying insurance rather than a differentiator, that matters.
Try the difference in one call
The emoji set is a parameter. Change one word and the browser that takes the picture changes with it.
bash
curl -X POST https://webshotter.com/api/v1/webshots \
-H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"url": "https://example.com", "emoji_set": "apple"}' \
-o webshot.pngOther comparisons
See it against Urlbox yourself
A hundred webshots a month on the free plan, no card. Point both at the same page and look at the emoji.