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.

The short answer

Free plan
Both — Browserbase has a free plan, ego (lite) is free to use
Public API
Browserbase has one; not confirmed by us for ego (lite)
Best fit
Browserbase: Developers building browser-using AI agents · ego (lite): Developers using coding agents (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor) that need real browser sessions
Platforms
Browserbase: Web · ego (lite): macOS
Trust score
About even — Browserbase 96, ego (lite) 92

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

Side by side

FactBrowserbaseego (lite)
CategoryBrowser Automation AgentsBrowser Automation Agents
Pricing modelFreemiumFree
Starts at$20/mo—
Public APIYesNot confirmed
Trust score96 / 10092 / 100
PlatformsWeb, APImacOS
CompanyBrowserbase Inc.Citro Labs
Launched20242026
Last verifiedOct 22, 2026Oct 15, 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

Browserbase vs ego (lite): the questions people ask

Is Browserbase cheaper than ego (lite)?

ego (lite) is free to use; Browserbase starts at $20/mo.

Does Browserbase or ego (lite) have a free tier?

Both: Browserbase has a free tier, and ego (lite) is free to use.

Which has a public API, Browserbase or ego (lite)?

Browserbase ships a public API, as of our last verification. A public API for ego (lite) is not confirmed by us — check its developer docs before you plan an integration.

Browse all Browser Automation Agents →