Browser Use alternatives: 4 agents for driving the web
Updated By Agent Radar5 min read
Short answer
Browser Use alternatives when you want a different stack: Webcmd, Chrome Relay, TinyFish MCP and Playwright MCP, compared from public READMEs and docs.
Top pick: Webcmd. Apache-2.0 browser infrastructure that learns how a site is navigated and compiles that into reusable local commands so later runs skip rediscovery.
Quick comparison
| Pick | License | Pricing | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.Webcmd | Apache-2.0 | Core package is Apache-2.0. Webcmd Cloud is described as not yet stable; no dollar price is quoted here. | agentrhq/webcmd on GitHub |
| 2.Chrome Relay | MIT | MIT client. You bring the agent (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor or Paseo per the product site) and your Chrome profile. | aindeev/agent-chrome-relay on GitHub |
| 3.TinyFish | MIT | The local proxy repository is MIT. Hosted calls need a TinyFish account or API key. No dollar price is listed in the cited sources. | TinyFish MCP docs |
| 4.Playwright MCP | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 server. You run Playwright and supply any model the MCP client uses. | microsoft/playwright-mcp on GitHub |
People look for a Browser Use alternative for a few different reasons: they want Apache-2.0 instead of MIT plus a hosted cloud, they need the agent's browser to stay signed in as them, or they already drive tools through MCP and do not want another Python agent loop. Those lead to different picks.
First: what Browser Use actually is
The browser-use/browser-use README, checked November 6, 2026, describes three paths: a fully hosted Cloud agent, a CLI/skill for coding agents, and an open-source Python library (uv add browser-use, Python 3.11+). Cloud stealth browsers are listed from $0.02 per browser-hour, with new Google, GitHub or Microsoft signups getting $1 cloud credit. The Stealth Bench score in the README is the company's own figure.
Stay on Browser Use when that Python library plus optional Cloud browsers is what you want. Switch when the workflow below matches better.
Pick by what you want to change
| You want | Start with | What you give up |
|---|---|---|
| Cheaper repeat visits to the same sites | Webcmd | Browser Use's size and Cloud fleet |
| Your real Chrome session | Chrome Relay | Headless cloud scale |
| MCP search/browse from an IDE agent | TinyFish | A self-hosted Python agent loop |
| Playwright-level tool calls over MCP | Playwright MCP | A single "book the appointment" agent API |
The order is editorial, not a benchmark. We did not run speed or stealth tests.
Webcmd: remember the site, spend fewer tokens
Webcmd is Apache-2.0 browser infrastructure from AgentR (agentrhq/webcmd). The README says it learns navigational context as agents use a site, then turns that into local commands so later runs do not rediscover the same flows. The "up to 90 percent" token claim is the project's goal; this site does not treat it as a measured result. Pick it when repeat automation on the same properties matters more than a hosted stealth fleet.
Chrome Relay: keep the cookies
Chrome Relay (aindeev/agent-chrome-relay) is MIT-licensed. The product site says Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and Paseo can use your signed-in Chrome in background tabs. Pick it when the hard part is authentication, not CAPTCHA farms.
TinyFish: MCP web tools without a local browser stack
TinyFish exposes search, fetch, extraction and browser automation over MCP. Docs: docs.tinyfish.ai/mcp-integration. The local proxy in tinyfish-io/tinyfish-mcp-server is MIT; the hosted service is TinyFish's. The repository description says Search and Fetch are free. Dollar prices for other hosted calls are not listed in the sources we cite.
Playwright MCP: structured browser tools
Playwright MCP is Microsoft's Apache-2.0 MCP server over Playwright. The latest note on this site is Playwright MCP 0.0.84. Pick it when your coding agent should call locators and navigation tools directly, not when you want a single hosted "complete this web task" API.
Who should stay on Browser Use
If you already run the Python library against a local browser, or you need the Cloud stealth browser product with the published $0.02/hour starting point, switching costs you that stack. New Browser Use Cloud signups still advertise a $1 credit on the README checked today. For broader browsing of this niche, see the browser agents category.
Sources checked November 6, 2026. Cloud prices, free tiers and MCP tool lists change; verify the linked pages before you commit.
The picks
Apache-2.0 browser infrastructure that learns how a site is navigated and compiles that into reusable local commands so later runs skip rediscovery.
Pros
- Designed to cut repeated token spend by remembering site navigation as commands.
- Apache-2.0 client you can run yourself.
Cons
- Younger project than Browser Use; fewer public integrations.
- Hosted Cloud is explicitly not yet stable in the project's own wording.
Pricing Core package is Apache-2.0. Webcmd Cloud is described as not yet stable; no dollar price is quoted here.
MIT-licensed bridge so coding agents use your already signed-in Chrome in background tabs instead of a fresh automated profile.
Pros
- Keeps your real logins and cookies; no separate stealth browser fleet to rent.
- Aimed at Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and Paseo workflows.
Cons
- Tied to a desktop Chrome you control; not a headless cloud browser fleet.
- Not a full Python agent library like Browser Use.
Pricing MIT client. You bring the agent (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor or Paseo per the product site) and your Chrome profile.
Hosted web agent exposed over MCP for search, page fetch, extraction and browser automation, with an MIT local proxy.
Pros
- MCP-native: drop into Claude, Cursor, VS Code or any MCP client.
- Search and fetch are described as free on the repository description.
Cons
- Hosted service is TinyFish's; the open-source piece is mainly the proxy.
- Less control than running Browser Use's Python library against your own browser.
Pricing The local proxy repository is MIT. Hosted calls need a TinyFish account or API key. No dollar price is listed in the cited sources.
Microsoft's MCP server that gives agents structured Playwright browser tools instead of a high-level 'do this task' agent loop.
Pros
- Low-level, deterministic browser control that matches Playwright's locator model.
- Fits coding agents that already speak MCP.
Cons
- You (or the outer agent) plan the steps; it is not a single-task hosted browser agent.
- No built-in stealth browser cloud; you bring the browser environment.
Pricing Apache-2.0 server. You run Playwright and supply any model the MCP client uses.
Questions
What is Browser Use?
Browser Use is an MIT-licensed open-source browser agent (Python library, CLI and hosted Cloud). The browser-use/browser-use README, checked November 6, 2026, describes local runs with any LLM and Browser Use Cloud stealth browsers from $0.02 per browser-hour.
Is there an open-source Browser Use alternative?
Yes. Webcmd is Apache-2.0, Chrome Relay and the TinyFish MCP proxy are MIT, and Playwright MCP is Apache-2.0. Hosted pieces (Browser Use Cloud, TinyFish's service, Webcmd Cloud) are separate from those licenses.
Which Browser Use alternative keeps my real Chrome logins?
Chrome Relay. Its repository and product site say agents use your signed-in Chrome in background tabs.
Which alternative talks MCP natively?
TinyFish (hosted MCP endpoint plus local proxy) and Playwright MCP. Browser Use itself also publishes MCP-oriented packaging, but the four picks above are the catalog alternatives filed here.
When should I stay on Browser Use?
If you want a Python agent library with optional Cloud stealth browsers and a large public ecosystem. The README's Stealth Bench and cloud prices are the vendor's own figures; verify them on docs.browser-use.com before you buy.