Browser Use vs Browserbase

Two fact sheets from our own research, side by side — pricing, platforms, API access and status re-checked by us rather than quoted from the vendors.

The short answer

Free plan: Both have one
Public API: Both have one
Higher Trust score: Browserbase — 96 vs 78 for Browser Use
Best fit: Browser Use: Running web automation without maintaining your own browser infrastructure · Browserbase: Developers building browser-using AI agents
Status: Both up at our last check — Browser Use Oct 16, 2026, Browserbase Oct 22, 2026

From our own records as of each tool's last check. Anything we have not confirmed is left out rather than guessed. How we verify

Browser UseManaged cloud browsers driven by AI agents, from a plain-language task or from Python and TypeScript code.

BrowserbaseHosted headless-browser infrastructure so AI agents can browse, log in, and fill forms on real websites at scale.

Side by side

Fact	Browser Use	Browserbase
Category	Browser Automation Agents	Browser Automation Agents
Pricing model	Freemium	Freemium
Starts at	—	$20/mo
Public API	Yes	Yes
Trust score	78 / 100	96 / 100
Platforms	Web, API	Web, API
Company	Browser Use	Browserbase Inc.
Launched	2024	2024
Last verified	Oct 16, 2026	Oct 22, 2026

What our research says

Browser Use

The MIT-licensed open-source library made the category legible, and the hosted service is the practical way to run it at scale without babysitting Chromium instances; CDP compatibility means existing Playwright or Puppeteer code points at it with a config change. Billing is now pure pay-as-you-go with no subscription, so light users pay cents while heavy proxy traffic or frontier models add up fast.

Pros

MIT-licensed open-source library underneath, so you are not locked into the hosted service
CDP-compatible endpoint works with existing Playwright, Puppeteer and Selenium code
No subscription: credits from $5 never expire, and new sign-ups get $1 free
Concurrency starts at 10 sessions and rises automatically with lifetime spend
Models from several providers, or your own key

Cons

Real cost depends on browser-minutes, proxy GB and model tokens, with a 20% fee on tokens
Residential proxy is on by default at $5/GB, which adds up quickly on media-heavy sites
Company founded only in 2024, so its operational track record is short

Browserbase

Browserbase removes the operational work of running headless Chrome at scale - proxies, fingerprinting, CAPTCHA, session storage - which is exactly the layer most agent-building teams don't want to own themselves. It's infrastructure, not a finished agent, so there's still integration work to do on top of it.

Pros

Automatic CAPTCHA solving and proxy/fingerprint handling out of the box
Free tier available to test before paying
Session replay and observability for debugging agent runs
Open-source Stagehand framework for the automation layer

Cons

Free tier is capped at just 1 browser hour, not enough for real workloads
Requires developer effort to wire into an actual agent - it's infrastructure, not an end-user tool
Overage billing on browser-hours can add up for high-volume use

Which one fits

Choose Browser Use if you need

Running web automation without maintaining your own browser infrastructure
Teams already on Playwright, Puppeteer or Selenium via the CDP endpoint
Agent workflows needing session persistence, replay and human checkpoints

Choose Browserbase if you need

Developers building browser-using AI agents
Teams scraping sites that block plain HTTP requests
Products that need agents to log in and act on behalf of users