Reddit Posts Scraper

The most accessible Reddit posts scraper on Apify. Get comprehensive posts data from direct URLs, user profiles, subreddit profiles, and search. Your best bet to unlock Reddit's ecosystem.

Why Choose this Scraper?

• Comprehensive posts data from direct URLs, user profiles, subreddit profiles, and search.
• Complete settings to customize results to your specific usecase.
• Normalized and structured output, providing meaningful fields instead of raw API payloads.

Output

Fields

• input: The input url or search query
• category: Post category. One of direct, user, subreddit, and search
• rank: The rank of the post based on the sort order. Valid for user, subreddit, and search posts
• id: The post id
• permalink: The permanent link to the post
• contentUrl: The url of the actual content
• domain: The domain of the actual content url
• thumbnail: The post thumbnail
• createdAt: The post creation datetime
• editedAt: The datetime the post was last edited
• title: The post title
• flairText: The post flair text
• content: The post content
• contentMedia: The post media, if it has
  • contentMedia[].type: One of image or video
  • contentMedia[].url: Direct media url
  • contentMedia[].metadata: Media metadata
    • contentMedia[].metadata.width: Media width
    • contentMedia[].metadata.height: Media height
    • contentMedia[].metadata.bitrateKbps: The video bitrate in kbps. Only available for video type
    • contentMedia[].metadata.duration: Duration of video in seconds. Only available for video type
    • contentMedia[].metadata.hasAudio: Flag that indicates if video has audio. Only available for video type
• subreddit: The post subreddit information
  • subreddit.id: Subreddit id
  • subreddit.name: Subreddit name
  • subreddit.url: Subreddit url
  • subreddit.subscribers: Number of subreddit subscribers
• author: The post author information
  • author.id: Author id
  • author.name: Author name
  • author.url: Author url
  • author.isDeleted: Flag that indicates if author is deleted
  • author.isMod: Flag that indicates if author is a moderator of the subreddit
• isCrosspost: Flag that indicates if post is a crosspost
• crosspostedPostUrl: The post url of the crossposted post. Only available when isCrosspost is true.
• isCrosspostable: Flag that indicates if post can be crossposted
• isArchived: Flag that indicates if post is archived
• isLocked: Flag that indicates if post is locked
• isNsfw: Flag that indicates if post is NSFW
• isOriginalContent: Flag that indicates if post is original content
• isVideo: Flag that indicates if post is video
• score: The score of the post
• upvoteRatio: The ratio of upvotes to the total number of votes
• crosspostCount: The number of times this post has been crossposted
• commentCount: The number of comments of this post

Direct post example

{
  "input": "https://www.reddit.com/r/NewToReddit/comments/1s28tot/finally_joined_reddit_at_37_years_old/",
  "category": "direct",
  "rank": null,
  "id": "t3_1s28tot",
  "permalink": "https://www.reddit.com/r/NewToReddit/comments/1s28tot/finally_joined_reddit_at_37_years_old/",
  "contentUrl": "https://www.reddit.com/r/NewToReddit/comments/1s28tot/finally_joined_reddit_at_37_years_old/",
  "domain": "self.NewToReddit",
  "thumbnail": null,
  "createdAt": "2026-03-24T09:18:49+00:00",
  "editedAt": null,
  "title": "Finally joined Reddit at 37 years old.",
  "flairText": "ANSWERED",
  "content": "I've known about Reddit for over 10 years but I never joined, before now. I don't really engage in casual forums, I mostly only ever post to ask a question about a specific thing. So I have like 20+ forum accounts for different forums relating to my interests. A hiking forum, programming forum, physics forum etc.\n\nOver the years I've noticed these individual forums dying from lack of activity so I decided to just give Reddit a shot, essentially consolidating all my separate forums into one \"forum\", being Reddit.\n\nSeeing as one of my interests is physics, does Reddit have support for LaTeX script? Or is there any kind of plugin I can use so when I type an equation, it actually generates proper structure etc?",
  "contentMedia": [],
  "subreddit": {
    "id": "t5_2r656",
    "name": "r/NewToReddit",
    "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/NewToReddit/",
    "subscribers": 1367673
  },
  "author": {
    "id": "t2_2aup5loh2k",
    "name": "u/AltruisticOwl156",
    "url": "https://www.reddit.com/user/AltruisticOwl156/",
    "isDeleted": false,
    "isMod": false
  },
  "isCrosspost": false,
  "crosspostedPostUrl": null,
  "isCrosspostable": false,
  "isArchived": false,
  "isLocked": true,
  "isNsfw": false,
  "isOriginalContent": false,
  "isVideo": false,
  "score": 20,
  "upvoteRatio": 0.86,
  "crosspostCount": 0,
  "commentCount": 15
}

Subreddit post example

{
  "input": "https://www.reddit.com/r/math/",
  "category": "subreddit",
  "rank": 5,
  "id": "t3_1s44dth",
  "permalink": "https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/1s44dth/unpopular_but_hear_me_out/",
  "contentUrl": "https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/1s44dth/unpopular_but_hear_me_out/",
  "domain": "self.math",
  "thumbnail": null,
  "createdAt": "2026-03-26T11:04:23+00:00",
  "editedAt": "2026-03-27T05:30:07+00:00",
  "title": "Unpopular but hear me out",
  "flairText": null,
  "content": "I am currently learning Real Analysis and, like most beginners, I searched for a good introductory book. The responses I found were overwhelmingly in favor of *Understanding Analysis* by Stephen Abbott, with a fair number also recommending *How to Think about Analysis* by Lara Alcock.\n\nI decided to get both.\n\n*How to Think about Analysis* was exactly what it was claimed to be. It was very helpful in guiding how to approach the subject and how to begin thinking about analysis. It felt appropriate for a beginner and aligned well with expectations.\n\nHowever, my experience with *Understanding Analysis* has been quite different. And not as what I have read about it.\n\nI’m a complete beginner in analysis, so I think I’m in a fair position to judge how beginner-friendly something is. And to me, this does not feel like a true introductory text. Understanding Analysis feels more like a short, intuition-heavy book that assumes more than it should (as an introductory or a beginners' book).\n\nI do not think it works well as a true beginner or introductory book, especially for someone self-studying. Again, I say this as someone completely new to analysis. I am not doing a rant, I am just disappointed in how it was claimed to be and how it actually was. I will give all proper reasoning on why I think so, so please bear with me for a while.\n\n**Important thing to mention - I am not disregarding this book as a good text on Real Analysis. I am just expressing my experience and views on this book as in an introductory and beginner-friendly book which many along with the book itself claims to be, as a complete beginner in analysis myself.**\n\nWhile the book does start from basic topics, the way it develops them feels more like a concise, intuition-driven treatment rather than a genuinely beginner-friendly introduction.\n\nOne of the most important features of a beginner math book, in my view, is **gradual guidance**. At the start, there should be a fair amount of “spoonfeeding\" which includes clear explanations, fully worked steps, and careful handling of common confusions. It should slow down exactly where confusion is expected. Then it can gradually reduce that support, encouraging independence. That balance is essential.\n\nThis is where I feel *Understanding Analysis* falls short. Abbott doesn’t really do that. It focuses a lot on motivation and intuition, but often leaves gaps that a beginner is expected to fill.\n\nThe book invests heavily in motivation and intuition, which is valuable, but it does not always provide enough detailed explanations or fully worked-out steps for someone encountering these ideas for the first time. And where explanations are present, they are not always deep or explicit enough for a beginner. It rarely slows down at points where a newcomer is likely to struggle, and it seems to assume that the reader is ready to fill in significant gaps on their own.\n\nAnother issue is the lack of **visual aids and illustrations**. For an introductory text, especially in a subject like analysis where graphs and geometric intuition can be extremely helpful, the book feels quite sparse visually. This makes some concepts feel more abstract than they need to be, particularly for a beginner trying to build intuition.\n\nAdditionally, the learning experience from the book depends heavily on solving exercises rather than being guided through the material in the text itself. While active problem-solving is important, relying on it too early and too much can make the book feel less accessible as a first introduction. I don’t think it works well for a first exposure where you still need strong guidance from the explanations.\n\n>Since there were slight confusions about the above para, I am copy-pasting one of my reply to express better what I want to say:\n>>No, it's not that I can't solve exercises or that I am against solving exercises. It was about how the book have its structure of exercises. Consider you have some topic A. Normally what follows is that there is an explanation on the topic, maybe a few solved examples and then the exercises. But Understanding Analysis have a different structure. Instead of the explanation on the said topics, the book introduces exercises with the motivation and intuition behind and expects you to solve them to get the explanation of the topics on your own.\n>>\n>>Now I am also not against this structure. In fact I find this unique and somewhat fun to do. What I meant is that the book heavily relies on this structure. And as an introductory book, in my opinion, abandoning explanations almost completely may not be the best thing to do for several reasons. Though I am getting different perspectives on why this is the case and also why this is how it should be. I am learning and knowing more through the different perspectives myself from the replies I am getting.\n>>\n>Apologies for making the post even longer than it already is.\n\nI also feel that something about the way it builds understanding doesn’t fully click, at least for me. It’s hard to pinpoint exactly where, but compared to other beginner-oriented texts, the progression doesn’t feel as good.\n\nThat said, I am open to the possibility that I may be approaching it incorrectly. But even then, I believe a beginner book should meet the learner where they are. A beginner should not have to adapt to the book to this extent, instead, the book should be designed to adapt to beginners.\n\n>I learned from comments that one possible explanation for this could be because, before learning Real Analysis, I had no prior exposure to proofs in any kind, which made the book's overall experience a little less enjoyable and pleasant than it should have been.\n\nOnce again, I don’t think it’s a bad book. I just don’t think it should be recommended as a **first** book.\n\nHowever, from my overall experience so far with Real Analysis and with this book, I can see its value as a good **second book**. In the sense that after going through a more detailed and guided first text that clearly introduces and explains the main topics, this book could work well as a follow-up. In that role, it can reintroduce the same ideas with stronger emphasis on mathematical thinking, intuition, and motivation. And obviously no, How to Think about Analysis is not that first book. Their author themself says that the book is nowhere to any main course book and I guess we all know why.\n\nSo my overall impression is that *Understanding Analysis* may be a good book but not necessarily a good **first** book for self-studying Real Analysis. It is still sufficient as first book but only if you have an instructor (i.e. you would have to attend the classes) or a tutor. For self-learners this book as a first book is a **HUGE and BIG NO.**\n\nI’d be interested to hear others’ thoughts on this. Especially from those who started with this book (with or without instructors) vs who used it after some prior exposure. Also let me know if there's any other book which I should read.\n\n\nThanks for reading till here.",
  "contentMedia": [],
  "subreddit": {
    "id": "t5_2qh0n",
    "name": "r/math",
    "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/math/",
    "subscribers": 3935706
  },
  "author": {
    "id": "t2_12b45gtesg",
    "name": "u/Shreshuk",
    "url": "https://www.reddit.com/user/Shreshuk/",
    "isDeleted": false,
    "isMod": false
  },
  "isCrosspost": false,
  "crosspostedPostUrl": null,
  "isCrosspostable": false,
  "isArchived": false,
  "isLocked": false,
  "isNsfw": false,
  "isOriginalContent": false,
  "isVideo": false,
  "score": 80,
  "upvoteRatio": 0.84,
  "crosspostCount": 1,
  "commentCount": 57
}