Submit YouTube handles, channel URLs or plain search terms and get each channel back as a row - title, description, subscriber count, total views, video count, keywords, RSS feed and thumbnail. The three counts arrive twice: once as displayed, once already parsed to a number.
The input form is the single biggest factor in what a run costs, and it is worth two minutes before you queue a large one.
Hand it something that identifies one specific channel - a handle like @MrBeast, a handle URL like https://www.youtube.com/@outscraper, or a channel-ID URL - and you get exactly one row. Across 29 such queries in our own runs, every single one resolved to a single channel.
Hand it a plain search term - cars, tech guruji - and it behaves like a search, returning up to ten channels for that one query. Ten terms at that rate is a hundred rows, not ten. This is the setting that surprises people.
One behaviour worth knowing and worth treating carefully: in our runs a video URL also resolved, returning the channel that published it. That is genuinely useful for going from a video you found to the creator behind it - but it is not part of the documented input contract, so we would not build a pipeline that depends on it without testing your own URLs first.
A handle, a URL or a search term is the whole input. There is nothing else to configure.
All the forms work - @MrBeast, https://www.youtube.com/@outscraper, or a bare term like cars.
The reference documents twenty response fields; our own 39 runs returned exactly those twenty, in this order. Fill rates below are measured across 167 rows covering 83 distinct channels.
@BBKiVines is a real title rather than a parsing error.UCqwUrj10mAEsqezcItqvwEw. Present on all 167 - the field to key your database on.https:// on all 163 rows that carried one.Yes. Present on 159 of 167 - see the note below before you treat it as a boolean.http://www.youtube.com/@BBKiVines. Present on 159 of 167 - note the scheme, covered below.https://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?channel_id=…. Present on all 167.195. Present on 163 of 167.26.5M. Present on 146 of 167.26500000. Present on 146 of 167. This is the one to do arithmetic on.11,263,732 views. Present on 150 of 167.11263732. Present on 150 of 167.Sixteen of the twenty fields carried data; four never did. primary_links, secondary_links, joined and country are documented by the reference but were empty in every one of our 167 rows - so this page lists them and tells you what we actually saw, rather than promising them or pretending they don't exist. query, channel_id and rss_url were the only three present on every single row. If your workflow needs a channel's country or join date, confirm it on the free tier before you build around it.
Each of these came out of reading 167 real rows rather than the reference, which is why they are worth the space.
subscribers_count is what YouTube shows - 26.5M - and views_count carries the literal word views on all 150 rows that had one. The three _parsed twins hold real numbers instead. Sum and sort on those; keep the display strings for display.
When a count is present the _parsed value is a JSON number; when it is absent the field is an empty string rather than null or 0. A strict numeric cast will throw on the blanks and a loose one will silently turn them into zero - which is worse, because a channel with no reported views then looks like a channel with none.
Every one of the 159 rows that carried a vanity_channel_url used http://, while channel_url used https:// on all 163 of its own. Not a problem in a browser, which upgrades it - but worth normalising before these URLs go into a database, an export or a link check that treats the two as different.
It is a string, not a boolean, and across all 167 rows the only value we ever saw was Yes. We have not observed what a non-family-safe channel returns, so do not assume the negative case is No - test for the value you want rather than against one you have never seen.
Where a channel's numbers alongside its own words change a decision.
Outreach lists usually start as a pile of handles with no sense of scale. Running them gives subscriber count, total views and video count in one pass, already parsed to numbers - so you can sort by reach, filter out the dormant channels and see who is actually worth an email before you write one.
One snapshot tells you a channel's size; the same snapshot repeated tells you its direction. Fix a set of competitor handles, re-run on a cadence, and the movement in subscribers, views and video count shows who is publishing, who is growing and who has quietly stopped.
The description and keywords are written by the channel, which is exactly what makes them interesting. Pull them across a category and the shared vocabulary - and the gaps in it - shows how creators in that space choose to be found. The RSS feed on every row then gives you a standing way to follow the ones that matter.
No subscription, no minimum, no per-seat licence. Your first 500 rows are on us - after that, pay-as-you-go.
Every new account, one-time. No credit card required. Particularly worth spending a few on one search term, so you can see how many channels a term of your own actually returns before you queue a keyword list.
Roughly $2 per 1,000 channels. Handles and channel URLs are one row each and exact to budget; search terms expand to as many as ten, so read the estimate before a wide list.
Volume pricing, SLAs, dedicated workers and bespoke onboarding for teams re-checking a large channel set on a schedule. Tell us your numbers and we'll quote.
LIVESCRAPER10 at checkout.This describes the channel itself. These two cover what surrounds it.
Video results as Google ranks them, with the source attributed. Where this page tells you how big a channel is, that one tells you which of its videos actually surface in search.
Worth pairing precisely because this service does not give you a way to reach anyone - both link fields came back empty in every run. Once you have a creator's own site from elsewhere, this pulls the emails, phones and socials off it.
Lighter than contact data, heavier than firmographics - and the reason sits in one field rather than the whole schema.
A channel page is published so that viewers, advertisers and partners can find it. Subscriber counts, view totals, video counts, keywords and an RSS feed are facts about a published body of work, and collecting publicly available information for research is long-established practice. For the large majority of channels - brands, studios, media companies - nothing in these twenty fields describes a private individual.
The honest caveat is that a great many channels are one person. Where that is so, the title, description and thumbnail relate to an identifiable human being, and that makes them personal data under GDPR and comparable regimes regardless of how public the page is. Sorting creators by subscriber count is ordinary market research; building a profile of a named individual is not, and the second needs a lawful basis you can state.
Two practical notes. This service returns no contact details of any kind - both link fields were empty in every run we hold - so it cannot on its own be used to reach anyone. And YouTube's terms restrict automated access, which stays a terms question here as it does everywhere. Nothing behind a login is touched, no third-party trackers run on the data layer, and exports auto-delete after 30 days.
The questions we hear most. Anything else? Talk to us - humans, not bots, write the answers.
@MrBeast, a handle URL such as https://www.youtube.com/@outscraper, a channel-ID URL, or a plain search term. Up to 1,000 queries per request. In our own runs a video URL also resolved to the channel that published it - useful, but not part of the documented input contract, so test it on your own URLs before relying on it.subscribers_count is what YouTube displays. The companion subscribers_count_parsed holds the same figure as a real number - 26500000 - and that is the one to sum or sort on. The same pattern applies to views_count, which carries the literal word views, and to videos_count.joined and country were empty in all 167 rows we hold, as were primary_links and secondary_links. We list them because the reference does and we would rather show you the whole schema than a flattering subset. If your workflow needs any of the four, confirm on the free tier before building around it.rss_url, the channel's RSS feed, which is a standing way to follow new uploads without re-running anything.Paste your handles, channel URLs or search terms and get twenty fields per channel, with the counts already parsed to numbers. Your first 500 rows are free - enough to see how a search term of your own behaves before you commit.
A YouTube channel page holds the numbers people actually judge a creator by - how many subscribers, how many total views, how many videos published - alongside the words the creator chose to describe themselves. Reading that for one channel takes a moment; reading it for four hundred is the problem this solves. Submit YouTube handles, channel URLs or plain search terms, up to a thousand queries per request, and each channel comes back as a single row carrying twenty fields: the query you submitted, title, description, channel ID, canonical channel URL, a family-safe flag, the vanity handle URL, the channel's own keywords, its RSS feed, a thumbnail, two link fields, and three counts that each arrive twice - once as displayed and once parsed to a number.
The most important thing to understand before running anything is that the input form decides the row count. A handle, a handle URL or a channel-ID URL identifies one specific channel and returns exactly one row; across twenty-nine such queries in our own testing, every one resolved to a single channel. A plain search term behaves quite differently: it searches, and returned as many as ten channels for a single term. Ten search terms at that rate is a hundred rows rather than ten, which is the difference between a job costing twenty cents and two dollars. The estimator prices a run before it starts, and spending a few free-tier rows on one term of your own is the cheapest way to learn how it behaves for the kind of names you care about. Separately, and worth flagging as an observation rather than a promise: a video URL also resolved in our runs, returning the channel that published it, which is a neat route from a video you found to the creator behind it - but the documented input contract covers handles and channel URLs, so test that path yourself before depending on it.
Four format details will save an importer rewrite. The three counts are duplicated deliberately: subscribers arrive as YouTube displays them, abbreviated to something like 26.5M, while the parsed twin holds 26500000 as a real number; total views arrive with the literal word views appended to a comma-grouped figure, while the parsed twin holds the bare integer. Use the parsed columns for anything arithmetic and keep the display strings for display. When a count is missing, though, the parsed field is an empty string rather than null or zero - a strict cast throws and a loose one quietly produces a zero, which reads as a channel with no views rather than a channel whose views were not reported. The vanity handle URL comes back on the http scheme in every row that carried one, while the canonical channel URL uses https, so normalise before storing or link-checking. And the family-safe flag is a string whose only observed value is Yes; the negative case has never appeared in our data, so test for the value you want rather than against one you have never seen.
Sixteen of the twenty fields carried data across our 167 rows. Four - the two link fields, the join date and the country - are documented by the reference but were empty in every single row, which this page states plainly rather than quietly omitting them or implying they arrive. Only the query, the channel ID and the RSS feed URL were present on every row, which makes the channel ID the sensible key for any database and the RSS feed a standing way to follow new uploads without re-running the job. On the legal side this sits between firmographics and contact data. A channel page is published to be found, and for a brand or a studio nothing in these fields describes a private person. But a great many channels are one individual, and where that is true the title, description and thumbnail relate to an identifiable human and are personal data under GDPR and comparable regimes however public the page may be. Ranking creators by reach is ordinary market research; profiling a named person is not. The service returns no contact details of any kind, YouTube's terms restrict automated access as platform terms generally do, nothing behind a login is touched, and exports auto-delete after 30 days. Start free: your first 500 rows cost nothing and need no credit card.