Skip to content
effecthub

Browserbase vs ego (lite)

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. Browserbase publishes a starting price ($20); ego (lite) does not. Both have a free tier. Only Browserbase ships a public API.

BrowserbaseHosted headless-browser infrastructure so AI agents can browse, log in, and fill forms on real websites at scale.ego (lite)Free macOS browser that shares your logged-in sessions with coding agents like Claude Code or Codex.

Side by side

FactBrowserbaseego (lite)
CategoryBrowser Automation AgentsBrowser Automation Agents
Pricing modelFreemiumFree
Starts at$20 month—
Public APIYesNo
PlatformsWeb, APImacOS
CompanyBrowserbase Inc.Citro Labs
Launched2024—
Last verifiedSep 1, 2026Sep 1, 2026

What our research says

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

ego (lite)

ego (lite) solves a real annoyance for developers using coding agents: it lets an agent browse the web with your actual logged-in sessions instead of starting from a blank, unauthenticated browser. Running it as a separate browser rather than a Chrome extension keeps agent activity from interfering with your own tabs. It is macOS-only today and, like any tool that shares your logged-in sessions with an autonomous agent, needs the same caution you'd apply to any agent with access to authenticated accounts.

Pros

  • Free with no account or configuration required
  • Imports Chrome bookmarks, passwords, extensions, and sessions in one step
  • Keeps agent browsing isolated from your own tabs via separate Spaces
  • Uses compressed page snapshots instead of raw HTML to cut token usage

Cons

  • macOS only at launch; Windows and Linux are still on the roadmap
  • Sharing logged-in sessions with an autonomous agent carries real security exposure if the agent misbehaves
  • Small, early-stage vendor rather than an established browser company

Which one fits

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

Choose ego (lite) if you need

  • Developers using coding agents (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor) that need real browser sessions
  • Anyone automating tasks on sites that require being logged in

More comparisons

Browse all Browser Automation Agents →