Home / Directory / Agents & orchestration / AI browser agents & web automation / Browser Use
Browser Use
San Francisco company from Y Combinator's Winter 2025 batch behind the open-source Browser Use library, which lets AI agents click, type, and navigate websites, plus a cloud browser service.
Developers building agents that fill forms, extract data, or test web apps, who want open-source code and pay-as-you-go cloud browsers.
Non-technical teams that want a finished automation app, or buyers who need fixed monthly pricing.
Verdict
Browser Use is a San Francisco company whose open-source library lets AI agents operate websites the way people do. It suits developers who need agents to fill forms, pull data, or run web tasks, with a hosted browser when they need scale. Its rapid rise on GitHub made it a default choice for many agent builders.
Score Breakdown
How Browser Use scores in the categories that matter to its buyers.
Pricing
Browser Use publishes pay-as-you-go rates with no subscription. New eligible signups get $1 in free credit, and credits never expire.
| Plan | Price | What stands out |
|---|---|---|
| Cloud browsers | $0.02 / hour | Plus $5 / GB for residential proxy traffic |
| Browser agents | Model cost + 20% | Plus browser time and traffic |
| Free credit | $1 | For eligible new signups, no card |
| Enterprise | Contact sales | SOC 2 Type II, HIPAA, zero data retention |
The Field at a Glance
How Browser Use compares with other AI browser agents and web automation vendors we reviewed, by Overall Score and relative typical engagement cost.
Browser Use scores 8.2 in AI browser agents and web automation, ahead of Browserbase (7.6), Kernel (7.6), Anchor Browser (7.4), and Skyvern (7.4). Relative cost lands lower for this subcategory.
Use-case matrix
| Use case | Fit | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Open-source library | Strong | MIT licensed, with more than 110,000 GitHub stars. |
| Cloud browsers | Strong | Hosted browsers that work over CDP with Playwright or Puppeteer. |
| Model choice | Strong | Works with models from many providers. |
| No subscription | Strong | Credits never expire. |
| Cost predictability | Mixed | Bills follow model use, hours, and traffic. |
| No-code use | Weak | Built for developers. |
Who it’s for
Good fit
- Developers building web agents
- Data extraction teams
- QA teams testing web apps
Poor fit
- Non-technical business users
- Buyers wanting flat monthly fees
- Teams barred from cloud browsers
Review Excerpts
Below are excerpts from public reviews. Our team scoured public reviews, forums, and chat rooms to get a balanced view of customers' experience with this company. Paid reviews and pay-for-play sites such as Clutch were excluded.
Browser Use says its library reached 50,000 GitHub stars and more than 15,000 active developers within months of launch, with uses from login automation and data extraction to QA testing.
Browser Use's cloud browsers cost $0.02 an hour with no subscription, and credits never expire.
Browser Use agents bill model cost plus 20%, along with browser time and $5 per GB of residential proxy traffic, so monthly costs vary with workload.
Company Facts
- Founded
- 2024 (Y Combinator)
- Headquarters
- San Francisco (Y Combinator)
- Accelerator
- Y Combinator, Winter 2025 batch (Y Combinator)
- Seed funding
- $17M led by Felicis (Browser Use)
- GitHub stars
- More than 110,000 (Y Combinator)
- License
- MIT open source (browser-use.com)
- Website
- browser-use.com
Key Leadership
Magnus Müller
Co-founder and CEO
Methodology
This page is an independent evaluation of Browser Use for buyers comparing options in AI browser agents and web automation. AI Industry Reviews accepts no sponsorships, advertising, or pay-for-placement fees. Browser Use did not pay for this review.
What we scored
The headline number is an Overall Score on a 0-10 scale. Eight criteria sit under it in two groups.
- Buyer outcomes (for AI browser agents and web automation)
- Open-source adoption
- Cost to start
- Hosted browser options
- Price predictability
- Company & commercial
- Innovation & product leadership
- Project management & communication
- Pricing
- Contract fairness
Pricing measures whether the price looks fair for the value delivered, including packaging and renewal friction that show up in real buying cycles.
Score Composition
| Input | Weight | What it covers |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 40% | A proprietary read of what practitioners say about likes, complaints, and day-to-day use, including public review sites, forums, and private chat rooms. Paid reviews and pay-for-play sites such as Clutch are out of scope. |
| Product | 35% | Hands-on look at screens and workflows. |
| Pricing | 15% | Whether the price looks fair for what you get. |
| Docs & training | 10% | Docs, tutorials, and training material. |
How we balanced the evidence
The Overall Score is the simple average of the eight criteria. Recommendation language follows that score and the fit pattern described above.
Scope
Browser Use is graded here as AI browser agents and web automation. Criteria scores can move as more review volume and product checks are added.