Registry › Compare › Agent Browser vs Browser Harness

Agent Browser vs Browser Harness

Both are Grade A and 2.6 points apart, so choose on what you weigh most. Agent Browser leads on supply-chain integrity and adoption; Browser Harness leads on transparency and maintenance.

A Agent Browser 87.6

Browser automation CLI for AI agents

vercel-labs/agent-browser · #53 overall · #7 Browser & Computer Use · coverage B (3/5)

Choose Agent Browser if supply-chain integrity and adoption matter most.

+1.7Safety / Integrity: 100% of recent commits signed, against 31%
+1.0Adoption: 1.7M weekly downloads against 1.5M

A Browser Harness 90.2

Browser Harness | Self-healing harness that enables LLMs to complete any task.

browser-use/browser-harness · #22 overall · #3 Browser & Computer Use · coverage B (3/5)

Choose Browser Harness if transparency and maintenance matter most.

+1.9Maintenance
+1.2Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 5.9 against 4.5

Where they differ

18.1

Safety / IntegrityAgent Browser +1.7

16.4

12.3

TransparencyBrowser Harness +1.2

13.5

18.1

MaintenanceBrowser Harness +1.9

20.0

19.5

AdoptionAgent Browser +1.0

18.5

+1.6

Runtime calibrationBrowser Harness +2.2

+3.8

1 dimension identical: Identity 18.0 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Agent Browser and Browser Harness, two Browser & Computer Use projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.

Full evidence

Signal	Agent Browservercel-labs/agent-browser	Browser Harnessbrowser-use/browser-harness
HVTrust score	87.6	90.2
Evidence grade	A	A
Coverage grade	B	B
Overall rank	#53	#22
Rank in Browser & Computer Use	#7	#3
GitHub stars	43.9k	18.4k
Last updated	today	today
Build provenance	Yes	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	4.5 / 10	5.9 / 10
License	Apache-2.0	MIT
Downloads	1.7M/wk	1.5M/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	18.1	16.4
Identity & provenance / 18	18.0	18.0
Transparency / 17	12.3	13.5
Maintenance / 20	18.1	20.0
Adoption / 20	19.5	18.5
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	Implemented
External providers	3 — Amazon Bedrock, Browserbase, Redis	1 — Anthropic
Requires API keys	Yes	No
Plugin surface	plugins	plugins
Provenance drift	Match	Match

Open in the live compare tool → Agent Browser profile Browser Harness profile More Browser & Computer Use →

How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption, scaled by an evidence-confidence factor. Grade bands: A ≥ 80, B ≥ 65, C ≥ 50, D < 50. Signals refresh daily. Full methodology v4.4 →