Browser Use is an open-source framework for building AI browser agents that run locally or on Browser Use Cloud. TinyFish is a managed web agent platform that runs agents on remote cloud browsers at enterprise scale. Accessible via REST API, Python/Node SDK, CLI, and MCP server — including direct integration with Claude Code and Cursor.
The fundamental difference is where the agent runs — and what that means for scale, reliability, and operational overhead.
Browser Use gives you a Python framework for creating browser agents. You write the orchestration code, choose your LLM, and run the agent — either locally on your machine or on Browser Use Cloud.
The open-source version (MIT license) is fully self-hostable. You control the model, the browser, the proxy, and the retry logic. This is genuine developer freedom — and it's why 85K developers have starred the repo.
Browser Use 2.0, their custom-trained model, runs at ~$0.002/step when using your own infrastructure — roughly 7.5x cheaper per step than TinyFish's PAYG rate. For developers who already have browser infrastructure and want granular control, this is a significant cost advantage.
Browser Use Cloud adds managed infrastructure: hosted browsers, session management, and an API layer. Pricing starts at $0.03–0.06/hr for browser sessions, billed separately from AI agent tasks.
TinyFish abstracts the entire stack into a single API call. You describe a task in natural language, and the platform handles browser execution, LLM reasoning, proxy rotation, infrastructure-level handling, and structured output — all server-side.
No framework to install. No browser to manage. No LLM to configure. The tradeoff: less customization, more abstraction.
Both platforms have published Mind2Web results:
Both scores are self-reported and use different evaluation methods, which makes direct comparison imprecise. Browser Use uses a custom agentic judge and reports 97.7% when excluding 2 tasks classified as impossible. TinyFish uses standard evaluation and published all 300 execution traces for independent verification — but the 90% score was recorded in February 2026, and accuracy may have improved since then with model updates. Neither score has been independently replicated by a third party.
Benchmark scores are a useful signal, but production reliability depends on more than accuracy on a test set — infrastructure-level handling, session persistence, parallel execution, and failure recovery all factor in. The best benchmark is testing both against your actual target sites.
This is where the architectural difference becomes a product difference.
Browser Use (open source): Runs on your machine. One browser, one session, one task at a time. If you need parallelism, you build it — spinning up multiple instances, managing resource allocation, handling failures across sessions. This is entirely doable for engineering teams with infrastructure experience, but it's infrastructure work.
Browser Use Cloud: Adds managed parallelism (up to 500 concurrent sessions), but browser sessions and AI tasks are billed separately. You're still managing the orchestration logic.
TinyFish: Up to 50 concurrent agents on Pro, with Enterprise plans scaling higher. Parallelism is built in — you send 50 tasks, all 50 run simultaneously. Total wall-clock time equals the slowest single task, not the sum of all tasks.
For a team that needs to run 500 workflows daily across different sites, the operational difference is significant. Browser Use gives you the building blocks. TinyFish gives you the system.
The cost math favors Browser Use when: you have engineering bandwidth to maintain the stack, you're running high volume where $0.002/step adds up to major savings, and you need MIT-licensed code for your product.
The cost math favors TinyFish when: you don't want to manage browser infrastructure, you need infrastructure-level handling and proxy rotation built in, you value time-to-production over per-step cost, and you want Search and Fetch APIs included free on every plan.
Browser Use's open-source framework gives you full control over your stealth approach. The community commonly uses compatibility libraries and browser configuration patches for improved site access. You choose your proxy provider and configure rotation logic. This flexibility means you can fine-tune for specific target sites — but the maintenance is yours. Browser Use Cloud includes browser-level compatibility features and Cloudflare compatibility out of the box.
TinyFish's infrastructure-level handling works reliably on most sites with strict automation requirements automatically. Residential proxy rotation is included at no extra cost. The key difference is that TinyFish adapts automatically when access issues occur — without manual intervention. For a detailed breakdown, see our infrastructure handling guide.
Both platforms have limitations on the most aggressive enterprise-grade protection systems.
Choose Browser Use (open source) if you:
Choose TinyFish if you:
Local vs cloud:
If you're already using Browser Use and it works for your scale — keep using it. The OSS community is strong and the per-step cost is hard to beat.
If you're hitting scaling limits, spending too much time on infrastructure, or need production-grade infrastructure-level handling without building it yourself — try the same workflow on TinyFish.
500 free steps. No credit card. Test your actual target site.
Both scores are self-reported with different methodologies. Browser Use reported 97% (97.7% excluding 2 impossible tasks) using a custom agentic judge, published March 2026. TinyFish scored 90% using standard evaluation with all 300 traces published publicly, recorded February 2026. The methodological differences make direct comparison imprecise — what matters more for your use case is testing both against your actual target sites.
Yes. The open-source version is MIT-licensed and fully free to self-host. You provide the browser, LLM, and infrastructure. Browser Use Cloud has paid tiers starting at approximately $40/mo, with browser sessions billed separately.
Browser Use self-hosted, using their own model at $0.002/step, is significantly cheaper per step. But you're paying for infrastructure (VMs, proxies, maintenance) on top. TinyFish is more expensive per step ($0.012–0.015) but includes all infrastructure. The crossover point depends on your volume and whether you have dedicated engineering resources for infrastructure.
Not on standard plans. Enterprise customers can discuss on-premise deployment options. Browser Use's MIT license allows full self-hosting with no restrictions.
Browser Use Cloud supports up to 500 concurrent sessions. TinyFish supports up to 50 concurrent agents on the Pro plan, with Enterprise plans scaling higher. For very high parallelism needs, both platforms offer custom Enterprise tiers.
No credit card. No setup. Run your first operation in under a minute.
