PhantomJSCloud vs ForgeKit
Last verified: Feb 1, 2026
TL;DR: PhantomJSCloud uses older rendering engines. ForgeKit uses modern Chrome for accurate renders and faster response times.
Compare output with ForgeKit
Feature comparison
| Feature | ForgeKit | PhantomJSCloud |
|---|---|---|
| Managed infrastructure | true | true |
| Avg response time | 1800ms | 3800ms |
| JavaScript rendering | true | true |
| PDF generation | true | true |
| MCP / agent support | true | false |
| Free tier | true | true |
| Rate limit (req/min) | 60 | 10 |
| SDK languages | REST, MCP, OpenAPI | REST |
PhantomJSCloud strengths
- Pay-per-use
- PDF and screenshot
- Long-running page support
PhantomJSCloud weaknesses
- Legacy PhantomJS engine
- Slower than Chrome-based APIs
- Dated developer experience
When to choose each
Choose PhantomJSCloud if: pay-per-use.
Choose ForgeKit if: you want managed utility APIs with MCP support.
Pricing at scale
| Volume | ForgeKit | PhantomJSCloud |
|---|---|---|
| 1,000 requests/mo | $19 (Starter) | Pay as you go |
| 10,000 requests/mo | $49 (Build) | Contact sales |
| 100,000 requests/mo | $99 (Scale) | Enterprise |
Migration guide
// PhantomJSCloud approach
const result = await captureWithPhantomJSCloud({
url: "https://example.com",
format: "png",
});// ForgeKit — one REST call
const res = await fetch("https://useforgekit.dev/api/v1/screenshot", {
method: "POST",
headers: {
"Authorization": "Bearer fk_live_...",
"Content-Type": "application/json",
},
body: JSON.stringify({ url: "https://example.com", width: 1280 }),
});
const { jobId } = await res.json();Sign up free — 250 credits included.