> **TL;DR:** Dedicated stealth cloud browsers like bro, Browserbase and Browser Use handled the heat way better than open-source frameworks. > > **bro** achieved the highest overall access rate at **83.50%**, bypassing modern bot protections passively *without* relying on automated CAPTCHA solvers. Hey there! If you're building scrapers or AI agents, you already know the struggle: most existing benchmarks focus on how well an agent clicks buttons or fills out forms. But let's be real - the biggest bottleneck is often just getting on the page without hitting CAPTCHA or getting blocked. To figure out what actually works in the wild, we built an open-source [browser benchmark](https://github.com/jsonifyco/browser-benchmarks) and used a [list](https://github.com/jsonifyco/browser-benchmarks/blob/main/urls.csv) of the 400 toughest sites protected by Cloudflare, DataDome, Akamai, PerimeterX and others. We tested 9 of the top cloud browser providers and open-source frameworks to see who could get through and load the real content. ## Benchmark results We compared the success rates of each provider. A success means the browser successfully bypassed the protection and loaded the actual target data. Automated CAPTCHA solving was deliberately disabled (where possible) to see how well these browsers bypass protections **passively**, using just their fingerprinting and proxy routing. | Provider | Proxy | Stealth | CAPTCHA Solver | Success Rate | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | [**bro**](https://getbro.ws/) | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | **83.50%** | | [**browserbase**](https://www.browserbase.com/solutions/browser-agents) | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | **79.75%** | | [**browseruse**](https://browser-use.com/stealth-browsers) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | **79.75%** | | [**browserless**](https://www.browserless.io/feature/browsers-as-a-service) | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | **75.50%** | | [**firecrawl**](https://www.firecrawl.dev/interact) | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | **73.50%** | | [**hyperbrowser**](https://www.hyperbrowser.ai/browser-sessions) | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | **63.25%** | | [**obscura**](https://github.com/h4ckf0r0day/obscura) | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | **39.50%** | | [**selenium**](https://github.com/seleniumhq/selenium) | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | **37.00%** | | [**playwright**](https://github.com/microsoft/playwright) | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | **36.25%** | ## How we ran the tests We kept the pipeline simple to make sure the results were fair and accurate. 1. **Open URL:** Hit the target URL. 2. **Wait 60 Seconds:** We gave the browser a full minute to ensure absolutely all page content loaded properly. 3. **Capture Screenshot:** Snap a full picture of the final state of the page. 4. **Verification:** Check if the protection was actually bypassed and the content was visible. Also, to keep things fair, we used the exact same proxy network for bro, Obscura, Playwright and Selenium to ensure IP quality didn't affect their success rates. The [full benchmark results](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OChqhUOtAAaW6kewOSEg-ccSB1TNCHwFCc8SYpoQy5k/edit?gid=1745712981#gid=1745712981), including every screenshot we checked, can be found in our public spreadsheet. ## Verification process Verifying 400 sites isn't always straightforward. Some websites are sneaky - they'll load the header and footer perfectly, making a simple HTML check think the page loaded, while completely blocking the main content (like news articles or product listings). To solve this, we used a dual-verification approach: 1. We fed all the screenshots to an LLM _(Gemini 3.1 Pro)_ and asked it to judge if the target page content was loaded properly. 2. Then we **manually verified** everything the LLM labelled. ### **Why did we verify 4k images manually?** Because LLMs fail from time to time! There were tricky edge cases where the page partially loaded and the AI couldn't tell that the actual target data was missing. The difference between human and LLM in judging the success rate was around 1-3%. ## Cost breakdown We also tracked how much it costs to run these browser sessions. ~95% of the costs come from proxy bandwidth. To help keep your proxy usage low, bro allows you to customize proxy tier and traffic routing policy. Here's the bro session config - we routed all traffic through the proxy to ensure the highest bypass results. Check out [session management docs](/docs/sdk/session-management) for more details. | Provider | Avg Cost / URL | Plan | Subscription Cost | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | [**browseruse**](https://browser-use.com/stealth-browsers) | $0.0231 | Dev | $29 | | [**bro**](https://getbro.ws/) | $0.0274 | Basic | $0 | | [**firecrawl**](https://www.firecrawl.dev/interact) | $0.0359 | Hobby | $19 | | [**browserless**](https://www.browserless.io/feature/browsers-as-a-service) | $0.0542 | Prototyping | $35 | | [**hyperbrowser**](https://www.hyperbrowser.ai/browser-sessions) | $0.0577 | Startup | $30 | | [**browserbase**](https://www.browserbase.com/solutions/browser-agents) | $0.0887 | Startup | $99 | | [**obscura**](https://github.com/h4ckf0r0day/obscura) | $0.0499 | - | - | | [**playwright**](https://github.com/microsoft/playwright) | $0.0499 | - | - | | [**selenium**](https://github.com/seleniumhq/selenium) | $0.0499 | - | - | Some providers were tested on paid subscription tiers which naturally brings their rates down. For example, Browserbase was tested on their $99/mo Startup plan (mid tier), while bro was tested on free Basic tier with zero subscription cost. If you're running bro's [Ultra plan](/pricing), usage rates drop by **50%**. ## What's next? The anti-bot landscape is a constant cat-and-mouse game. Security providers update their detection algorithms daily, which means a browser that bypasses a protection today might get blocked tomorrow. To keep this benchmark accurate and relevant, we'll be running these tests periodically. We also plan to expand the dataset with more complex targets and include additional cloud browser providers and open-source solutions in future runs. > As for bro, our goal isn't just to maintain our current lead. We are constantly refining our stealth features to push our success rate even higher. > > While achieving a perfect 100% pass rate is almost impossible in this space, we are determined to get as close as we can. ## Source code & Dataset We believe in transparency, so the source code for our evals is entirely public. You can check it out on our GitHub repo: [jsonifyco/browser-benchmarks](https://github.com/jsonifyco/browser-benchmarks). ## FAQ A Cloud Browser API (or Browser-as-a-Service) gives you a managed, hosted browser instance that you can control via API, CDP or WebSockets. Cloud browser APIs offload browser infrastructure management, proxy pool rotation and anti-bot fingerprint masking, allowing AI agents and web scrapers to reliably access dynamic websites. They all performed solidly, with success rates ranging from 73% to nearly 80%. Browser Use is great if you want CAPTCHA solving enabled by default. Browserbase and Browserless offer strong stealth profiles but come at higher price points. However, bro led the group by passively bypassing 83.5% of protections at a very competitive cost. Not always! Modern anti-bot systems (Cloudflare, DataDome, Akamai) primarily detect automation through passive signals, including: fingerprints, Canvas and WebGL entropy and proxy IP reputation. When these signals match genuine desktop profiles, cloud browsers bypass over 80% of protected endpoints without triggering a CAPTCHA challenge. Based on our empirical benchmark of 400 protected sites, bro is currently the most effective at bypassing modern protections out of the box, followed closely by Browserbase and Browser Use. In this benchmark, average costs ranged from $0.02 to $0.09 per URL under a 60 second hold time. In production environments where pages load in 3–10 seconds, typical request costs are significantly lower.

Blog

Cloud Browsers Benchmark: Bypassing anti-bot protection