HARPA AI
First with 3 out of 5. A page-aware Chrome assistant with light automation.
Browser Use lets an AI model take the wheel of a web browser: you describe a job in plain words and the agent clicks, types and reads until it's done. We put it through the 10 web tasks every agent in our AI browser agents test faces, from booking a demo through a form to pulling prices off five shops, and ran each one 20 times.
First-time accuracy was its weak spot: 129 of 200 runs succeeded straight away. Where it shone was freedom of choice. You can plug in any model, run it on your own machine or in its cloud, and pay only for what you use. Its retries also rescued 47 of the 71 runs that went wrong.
Final result: 3 out of 5, placing it third of seven and level on score with the two leaders. If you write Python, it's a strong, cheap starting point. If you don't, it isn't built for you.
Where Browser Use gained and lost points
Flexibility is the standout at 4. Reliability is the weakest part at 2, with set-up and integrations in between.
Reliability2.0
Ease of setup2.5
Flexibility4.0
Integrations2.5
Value for money3.5
Overall: 3 out of 5, worked out from these five part scores.
- Reliability (2/5): 129 of 200 runs worked on the first attempt, so roughly one in three didn't.
- Ease of setup (2.5/5): About 107 minutes to build each of our 10 workflows, all in code.
- Flexibility (4/5): Any AI model, your own machine or its cloud, and retries that saved 47 of 71 failed runs.
- Integrations (2.5/5): Just six of our ten required connections were usable code-free.
- Value for money (3.5/5): The library costs nothing, and cloud credits start at $5 and never expire.
Best of 2026
See the ranking →
Two agents tied with it and ranked higher
See all seven browser agents side by side before you commit.
What Browser Use is
At its core is a free Python library, released under the MIT licence, that hands control of a browser to an AI model. Instead of a script that follows fixed steps, the agent decides each click as it goes, which helps when a page layout changes but means every step uses model time.
Around that library the company now sells a cloud. Its hosted web agents run tasks for you, and its stealth cloud browsers, with CAPTCHA solving included, can be used by your own agent too. There's also Browser Harness, a free open-source tool that lets coding assistants work in your real Chrome. The project raised a 17 million USD seed round in March 2025, and its GitHub page shows about 121,000 stars.
It's firmly a developer product. There's no visual builder, so anyone who doesn't code should look at no-code agents instead.
From install to results
A typical first task looks like this.
1. Install and connect a model. Add the Python package and give it a key for the AI model you prefer.
2. Write the goal. Describe what the agent should achieve in a sentence or two.
3. Pick where it runs. Your own Chrome on your computer, or Browser Use's cloud browsers and hosted agents.
4. Read what comes back. The agent returns the data or confirms the job. In the cloud, browser hours, traffic and model use are charged against your credits.
The main pieces
Open-source agent
The free library you host yourself, paying only your model provider.
Stealth cloud browsers
Hosted browsers built to avoid bot blocks, with CAPTCHA solving included.
Hosted web agents
Tasks run in the cloud on the model you choose, including Browser Use's own fast models.
Browser Harness
Free, open-source access to your real Chrome for coding assistants.
Enterprise options
HIPAA, zero data retention, EU data residency and on-premises hosting.
Who it suits
Browser Use pays off for people comfortable with code; it offers nothing to fall back on if you aren't.
Good fit
Python developers building their own agents, teams that want to self-host for free, builders who need browsers that get past bot checks, and anyone wanting coding assistants to use a real Chrome.
Poor fit
Non-technical users, teams that want one fixed monthly bill, buyers who need a written refund policy, and anyone who wants plenty of user reviews before choosing.
Our 7-day Browser Use test
Browser Use was tested from October 5 to October 11, 2026. All seven agents in this group get identical jobs: 10 web tasks such as a book-a-demo form, a price check across five shops and a job application, each repeated 20 times. Our testing method page explains the full set-up.
Building the 10 workflows took around 107 minutes each, all written in code. Six of the 10 connections the workflows needed were available without code; the other four meant extra programming.
Across the 200 runs, 129 succeeded on the first attempt, about two in three. The remaining 71 is where Browser Use earned some credit back: automatic retries fixed 47 of them, and it raised an alert in 7 of the 10 failure cases we checked.
What surprised us most was billing. There's no subscription; you buy credits and pay for browser time, traffic and model use. That made it very cheap to try, but harder to forecast than a monthly plan.
| What we checked | Browser Use's figure | In practice |
|---|---|---|
| Correct on the first try | First-pass 129/200 runs correct | Plan for some tasks to need another go. |
| Build time per workflow | 107 min/build; 10 workflow(s) | Close to two hours each, written by a developer. |
| Recovery from failures | Retries recovered 47/71; alerts 7/10 | Most failed runs were rescued or flagged. |
| No-code connection coverage | 6/10 required connections no-code | The rest meant writing your own glue. |
Not the most accurate agent on a first pass, but retries, alerts and free choice of model make it a sound pick for a technical team.
Tested October 5, 2026 to October 11, 2026.
Pros and cons
Retries do real work
47 of the 71 first-try failures were recovered automatically.
Free to start
The MIT library is free, and new cloud users get a $1 credit.
No subscription
Credits from $5 that never expire, so there's nothing to cancel.
One in three runs failed first time
71 of 200 runs went wrong initially, a risk for one-shot jobs like submitting a form.
Code required
A Python library or API, with 4 of our 10 connections needing code.
Bills vary
Browser hours, traffic and tokens add up differently each month.
Pros
- Free MIT-licensed library
- Works with any AI model
- Retries saved 47 of 71 failed runs
- Credits never expire
- CAPTCHA solving included in the cloud
Cons
- 129 of 200 runs right first time
- No visual builder
- 6 of 10 connections without code
- No published refund policy
- No user reviews on Trustpilot yet
Browser Use pricing
There are no subscription plans. The open-source library is free, and you pay only your model provider. The cloud is pay as you go: credits start at $5, one credit equals $1, and they never expire. Each person can claim a $1 starting credit once.
Cloud browsers cost $0.06 per browser hour. Traffic through Browser Use's home-IP proxies is $5 per GB, or $0.20 per GB through your own proxy or a direct connection. Agent models are charged per million tokens; Browser Use's own BU Fast model, for example, is $0.12 in and $0.60 out. With your own model key, you pay the provider's cost plus 20 percent.
Pay as you go
$0
a month, plus usage
- Up to 1,000 browsers at once
- Credits never expire
- SOC 2 Type II and a signed DPA
Enterprise
Custom
through sales
- HIPAA and zero data retention
- EU data residency, on-premises
- Annual credit pools, custom SLAs
How many browsers you can run at the same time rises with your total spend, from 10 at the start to 1,000 after $25,000. Browser time is billed in whole minutes, with a one-minute minimum. We found no refund policy, so check before a large top-up.
Prices checked November 14, 2026 on Browser Use's pricing page.
Browser Use against its rivals
HARPA AI and Skyvern also scored 3 and finished first and second. HARPA AI is a Chrome extension for individuals from $12 a month billed yearly; Skyvern targets form-heavy and login-protected work from $29 a month and was more reliable than Browser Use in our runs.
Browserbase scored 2. It mainly sells browser infrastructure on monthly plans, while Browser Use includes its own agent and bills by use. Our AI browser agent ranking has all seven results.
| Option | Starting price | Built for |
|---|---|---|
| Browser Use | Free library; cloud $0.06 per browser hour | Developers who want any model, local or cloud |
| HARPA AI | $12 a month, billed yearly | Individuals automating pages in Chrome |
| Skyvern | $29 a month | Forms and logins on sites without an API |
| Browserbase | $20 a month | Cloud browser infrastructure for agents |
Security and safe use
The pricing page now lists SOC 2 Type II and a signed data processing agreement on the pay-as-you-go plan, with HIPAA, zero data retention and EU data residency kept for Enterprise. We didn't find a clear statement on default data retention or on training models with your data.
The larger risk is what any agent does with access. It works inside real browser sessions, so you're answerable for the logins you hand it and for each site's rules, and slipping past bot protection can breach a site's terms. We found no reported security incidents.
Use spare or limited accounts rather than your main logins, and bring your own model key if you want less data passing through a third party.
User feedback
Independent reviews are scarce. Browser Use's Trustpilot profile, checked November 14, 2026, is claimed but has no reviews yet.
Developer interest is easier to see: around 121,000 GitHub stars, and frequent recommendations in roundups aimed at engineers. Until user reviews build up, hands-on tests like ours are one of the few outside checks, and ours supports the flexibility claims while showing first-try accuracy can improve.
Alternatives
Two agents tied with Browser Use and ranked ahead; three sat lower.
Skyvern
Ranked second (3 out of 5) and beat Browser Use on reliability and integrations.
Axiom
2.5 out of 5. A no-code Chrome extension for scraping and form filling.
Steel
2.5 out of 5. More reliable than Browser Use but slower to set up.
Browserbase
2 out of 5. Cloud browsers for teams running agents in production.
3/5
Should you choose Browser Use?
For developers, yes, it's worth trying. It finished third of seven on 3 out of 5, level with the leaders. First-try accuracy was modest at 129 of 200, but retries rescued most failures and you keep full control over model, hosting and spend.
For a small business with no developer, it's the wrong choice: there's no visual builder and costs move with usage. If you can code, start with the free library or the $1 credit and test it on your own tasks first.
Browser Use suits developers who want a flexible, pay-as-you-go browser agent; non-coders should pick a no-code tool.
Still deciding?
Compare AI browser agents →
Compare all seven browser agents
Same tasks, same number of runs. The ranking lays out accuracy, set-up and price.
Disagree with our review?
Make your case
If you use Browser Use, or work there, and think we got something wrong, email us. Tell us what you saw and attach screenshots if you have them. We'll take another look and update the review if it changes our findings.
review.now.team@gmail.com
or open your email app
Frequently asked questions
How much does Browser Use cost?
There's no subscription. On November 14, 2026, cloud browsers cost $0.06 per browser hour, home-IP proxy traffic $5 per GB ($0.20 per GB with your own proxy), and model use is billed per token. Credits start at $5 and never expire.
Is Browser Use free?
The open-source library is free under the MIT licence; you only pay your model provider. The cloud has no free plan, but each person can claim a one-time $1 credit.
Do I need to code to use Browser Use?
Yes. It's a Python library with an API, aimed at developers, and has no visual builder. In our test, 4 of the 10 connections our workflows needed required code.
Does Browser Use have a subscription?
No. You buy credits from $5 and pay for what you use, so there's nothing to cancel. Enterprise customers can agree annual credit pools with sales.
Is Browser Use secure?
Its pricing page lists SOC 2 Type II and a signed DPA for pay-as-you-go users, and HIPAA, zero data retention and EU data residency for Enterprise. Because the agent uses real browser sessions, give it limited accounts and follow each site's rules.
How did you test Browser Use?
Over 7 days, from October 5 to October 11, 2026, we ran 10 web tasks 20 times each, the same tasks every browser agent in our test gets. We counted first-try successes, timed each build, and checked retries, alerts and no-code connections.
Written by
Liam Foster
If there's a strange new AI tool making its way around the internet, I've probably already bookmarked it. My favorite part is figuring out what these platforms can actually do.