Why this comparison matters
An AI agent that has to log in, fill a form or read a JavaScript-heavy page needs a real browser. You can run headless Chrome yourself, but then you also own the scaling, the crashes, the proxies, the CAPTCHAs and the bot detection. Cloud browser platforms rent you that layer through an API, and the three most often shortlisted are Browserbase, Steel and Anchor Browser.
They overlap a lot. All three host Chromium sessions that your code or your agent drives, and all three have Node.js and Python SDKs. The differences are in how they charge, what you can self-host, and how much they bundle on top of the raw browser. Those differences decide your bill once you move past a prototype, so they are worth sorting out before you write integration code.
This comparison is built from each vendor's pricing pages and docs, plus the scored.tools ratings for each tool. scored.tools did not run these platforms hands-on. Performance claims are attributed to whoever made them.
The three tools at a glance
Browserbase
Browserbase sells cloud browser infrastructure for agents, with a wide API surface: Search, Fetch, Browsers, Agents and Webhooks APIs, per its docs. It also maintains Stagehand, an open-source automation framework, and supports Playwright and Puppeteer as drop-in clients. Kernel's independent 2026 browser benchmark ranked Browserbase first on throughput with a composite score of 77.5. Browserbase says more than 10,000 companies use it, a figure it supplies itself. scored.tools rates it 7.4/10.
Steel
Steel is an open-source browser API under the Apache-2.0 licence. You can self-host it via npm or pip, or pay for Steel's cloud. It offers Puppeteer and CDP control, works with Playwright and Selenium, persists sessions, cookies and local storage, and ships stealth plugins with fingerprint management. It also has endpoints that turn a page into markdown, a screenshot or a PDF. The GitHub repo had 7,709 stars and was active in September 2026. scored.tools rates it 8.0/10, the highest of the three, mostly on pricing and API flexibility.
Anchor Browser
Anchor Browser hosts browsers built for computer-use agents, with stealth and proxy support. It has the broadest list of ready-made integrations of the three: n8n, Make, Zapier, LangChain, CrewAI and Stagehand. It supports Web-Bot-Auth verification, and its Team tier lists Cloudflare verified agents. Reviewers on SourceForge and Pixelscan praise its stealth and reliability. Anchor's claims of being 12x faster and 23x less error-prone come only from Anchor. scored.tools rates it 6.4/10, dragged down by pricing.
Feature comparison table
| Feature | Browserbase | Steel | Anchor Browser |
|---|---|---|---|
| scored.tools rating | 7.4 | 8.0 | 6.4 |
| Open source / self-host | Stagehand framework is open source; the browser platform is hosted | Yes, Apache-2.0, self-host via npm or pip | Hosted; Enterprise lists BYOC and on-premise |
| Client libraries | Playwright, Puppeteer, Stagehand SDK | Puppeteer, Playwright, Selenium, CDP, Node and Python SDKs | Node.js and Python SDKs, Stagehand |
| Extra APIs | Search, Fetch, Agents, Webhooks | Page-to-markdown, screenshot, PDF | AI steps and an embedded browser agent |
| No-code integrations | Not a focus in its docs | Not a focus in its docs | n8n, Make, Zapier |
| Agent framework integrations | Stagehand, works with any LLM | Via standard browser drivers | LangChain, CrewAI, Stagehand |
| Stealth and bot handling | Proxies on paid plans | Stealth plugins, fingerprint management, CAPTCHA solving | Stealth Chromium, CAPTCHA bypass, Web-Bot-Auth |
| Session persistence | Yes | Sessions, cookies, local storage | Authenticated browsers on paid tiers |
| Independent evidence | Kernel benchmark, #1 (77.5 composite) | Public repo, 7.7k GitHub stars | SourceForge and Pixelscan reviews |
Criteria scores
| Criterion | Browserbase | Steel | Anchor Browser |
|---|---|---|---|
| Output quality | 7 | 7 | 6 |
| Ease of use | 8 | 8 | 7 |
| Pricing value | 7 | 9 | 5 |
| API and integration | 8 | 9 | 8 |
| Problem fit | 7 | 7 | 6 |
| Overall | 7.4 | 8.0 | 6.4 |
Pricing comparison
The three use different billing models, which makes a straight comparison awkward. Browserbase sells flat tiers with browser hours included. Steel charges for usage, with an optional base fee that lowers the rates. Anchor sells monthly credit bundles and also bills browser time, proxy traffic and AI steps.
| Tool | Plan | Price | What you get (per vendor pricing page) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Browserbase | Free | $0/mo | 1 browser hour, 3 concurrent browsers, 7-day retention |
| Browserbase | Developer | $20/mo | 100 browser hours, 25 concurrent, then $0.12/hr; 1 GB proxy, then $12/GB |
| Browserbase | Startup | $99/mo | 500 browser hours, 100 concurrent, then $0.10/hr; 5 GB proxy, then $10/GB |
| Browserbase | Scale | Custom | 250+ concurrent, usage-based |
| Steel | Open source | Free | Self-host, you run the servers |
| Steel | Launch | $0 + usage | $30 one-time credits, $0.10/hr, 10 concurrent sessions, CAPTCHA $3 per 1k, proxy $10/GB |
| Steel | Scale | $250/mo + usage | $100/month credits, $0.08/hr, 100 concurrent, CAPTCHA $1 per 1k, proxy $6/GB |
| Anchor Browser | Free | $0 | 5 credits a month, up to 5 concurrent browsers |
| Anchor Browser | Starter | $50/mo | 50 credits, $1 per extra credit, up to 25 concurrent |
| Anchor Browser | Team | $500/mo | 500 credits, $1 per extra credit, up to 50 concurrent, 30-day retention |
| Anchor Browser | Growth | $2,000/mo | 2,000 credits, up to 200 concurrent, SOC2 Type 2, ISO27001 |
Anchor's usage rates are $0.09 per browser hour, $8.00 per GB of proxy and $0.01 per AI step, and its paid tiers charge 0.1 credits per completed task. Anchor's own worked example on its pricing page models 10,574 sessions a month and lands at about $0.49 per session. Proxy traffic makes up over $4,200 of that roughly $5,200 total, so proxy bandwidth is the line to watch.
What 100 and 500 browser hours cost
These figures cover browser time only, using list rates. Proxy and CAPTCHA fees come on top.
- 100 hours a month: Browserbase Developer covers it for $20. Steel Launch costs $10 at $0.10/hr, and the $30 sign-up credit pays for the first three months. Anchor's browser time is $9 at $0.09/hr, but you also need a credit plan for sessions and tasks.
- 500 hours a month: Browserbase Startup covers it for $99. Steel Launch costs $50, though you are capped at 10 concurrent sessions. If you need more parallelism, Steel Scale costs $250 and includes $100 of credits, which more than covers the $40 of usage. Anchor's browser time is $45, before per-session credits and AI steps.
On raw browser time Steel is the cheapest, and self-hosting it costs nothing beyond your own servers. Browserbase's tiers are the easiest to predict. Anchor costs the most once sessions and proxy traffic grow, and the scored.tools pricing score of 5 reflects that.
Use case scenarios
Pick Browserbase if you want managed infrastructure with the fewest surprises
Browserbase fits a team building a production browser agent that wants one vendor, one bill and a broad API. Search, Fetch and Webhooks sit next to the browsers themselves, so a scraping or agent pipeline can stay inside one platform. Stagehand gives you an open-source agent layer, and Playwright or Puppeteer code moves over with minimal changes. Kernel's independent throughput ranking is the strongest outside evidence any of the three has. The weak spot is the free plan, where 1 browser hour runs out during a first afternoon of debugging.
Winner for: teams that want managed, high-throughput browsers with predictable monthly tiers.
Pick Steel if cost or control matters most
Steel is the one to choose if you want the option to leave. Apache-2.0 means you can self-host the same browser API you rent, which matters for data-residency rules, air-gapped environments or simply not wanting lock-in. Its usage rates are the lowest of the three, and Selenium support helps teams with older test suites. The markdown, screenshot and PDF endpoints cover a lot of LLM data-prep work without extra tooling. The trade-off is that self-hosting means you run the infrastructure, and its 7.7k GitHub stars point to a smaller community than the bigger names in this space. Its stealth tooling also needs care around site terms of service.
Winner for: cost-sensitive developers, self-hosters and anyone who wants an open-source exit route.
Pick Anchor Browser if your workflow already lives in n8n, Zapier or LangChain
Anchor's integration list is its strongest point. If your automations already run in n8n, Make or Zapier, or your agents are built on LangChain or CrewAI, Anchor plugs in with less glue code than the other two. Its stealth Chromium, CAPTCHA bypass and Cloudflare verified agents target sites with heavy bot protection, and outside reviewers back up the stealth claims. Compliance buyers will note the SOC2 Type 2 and ISO27001 listing on Growth, plus BYOC, on-premise and HIPAA options on Enterprise. Model your volumes before committing, because per-credit, per-step and proxy fees grow fast, and reviewers say setup is hard for non-technical users despite the no-code integrations.
Winner for: no-code and agent-framework users who need stealth on bot-protected sites and have the budget for it.
Verdict
Steel takes the top score at 8.0 because it is the cheapest per browser hour, the most flexible on client libraries and the only one you can fully self-host under a permissive licence. For most developers starting a browser agent today, it is the default pick.
Browserbase at 7.4 is the better choice when you would rather pay a flat tier than think about infrastructure, and when throughput matters. It is the only one of the three with an independent benchmark ranking it first. Its $20 and $99 tiers are easy to budget.
Anchor Browser at 6.4 serves a narrower buyer: teams wiring agents into n8n, Zapier or LangChain who face aggressive bot protection and need compliance paperwork. For that buyer the integrations and stealth features justify the price. For everyone else, the credit and proxy fees make Steel or Browserbase the cheaper route to the same headless Chromium.
