Skip to content
effecthub

Browserbase vs Skyvern

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

Cheaper paid plan
Browserbase — $20/mo vs $29/mo for Skyvern
Free plan
Both have one
Public API
Both have one
Higher Trust score
Browserbase — 96 vs 90 for Skyvern
Best fit
Browserbase: Developers building browser-using AI agents · Skyvern: Automating portals and vendor sites that have no API

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

BrowserbaseHosted headless-browser infrastructure so AI agents can browse, log in, and fill forms on real websites at scale.SkyvernOpen-source browser agent that drives websites by intent instead of CSS selectors.

Side by side

FactBrowserbaseSkyvern
CategoryBrowser Automation AgentsBrowser Automation Agents
Pricing modelFreemiumFreemium
Starts at$20/mo$29/mo
Public APIYesYes
Trust score96 / 10090 / 100
PlatformsWeb, APIWeb, API, Linux
CompanyBrowserbase Inc.Ikonomos Inc.
Launched20242023
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

Skyvern

The strongest open-source option for agentic browser work, and the intent-based targeting really does survive UI changes that break Playwright scripts. Credits, not runs, are the unit you buy, and complex pages burn them fast - the ~170 free actions go in an afternoon. Self-hosting is a genuine escape hatch, but AGPL-3.0 has licensing consequences if you embed it in a product.

Pros

  • Vision-based element targeting survives layout changes that break selector scripts
  • Python and TypeScript SDKs plus webhooks for programmatic triggering
  • Self-hostable via Docker under AGPL-3.0, with the full engine open
  • Paid tiers cover CAPTCHA solving, stored credentials, 2FA/TOTP and 1Password

Cons

  • Credit pricing makes cost per workflow hard to predict before you run it
  • Free tier's 5,000 credits are one-time, not monthly
  • Advanced CAPTCHA solving and residential proxies only start at the $149 Pro tier

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 Skyvern if you need

  • Automating portals and vendor sites that have no API
  • Teams that want to self-host browser agents rather than send credentials to a SaaS
  • Invoice retrieval, form submission and recurring data pulls at moderate volume

Browserbase vs Skyvern: the questions people ask

Is Browserbase cheaper than Skyvern?

On published entry prices, Browserbase starts lower — $20/mo against $29/mo for Skyvern. Entry price is the lowest paid plan as we last verified it; what each plan includes differs.

Does Browserbase or Skyvern have a free tier?

Both: Browserbase has a free tier, and Skyvern has a free tier.

Which has a public API, Browserbase or Skyvern?

Both ship a public API, so either can be built on; the fact table above shows the platforms each one runs on.

More comparisons

Browse all Browser Automation Agents →