Registry › Compare › Agent Browser vs Browser Use

Agent Browser vs Browser Use

Both are Grade A and 3.9 points apart, so choose on what you weigh most. Agent Browser leads on supply-chain integrity; Browser Use rests on broader evidence. Note: Agent Browser's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage B vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types.

A Agent Browser 91.3

Browser automation CLI for AI agents

vercel-labs/agent-browser · #19 overall · #2 Browser & Computer Use · coverage B (3/5)

Choose Agent Browser if supply-chain integrity matters most.

+4.0Safety / Integrity: 100% of recent commits signed, against 11%

A Browser Use 87.4

Open-source Python library for AI browser agents, plus Browser Use Cloud: stealth browsers and a hosted agent API.

browser-use/browser-use · #68 overall · #8 Browser & Computer Use · coverage A (4/5)

Choose Browser Use if breadth of evidence matters most.

A vs BEvidence coverage: 4 of 5 independent signal types, against 3

Where they differ

18.2

Safety / IntegrityAgent Browser +4.0

14.2

12.4

TransparencyBrowser Use +0.3

12.7

19.8

AdoptionBrowser Use +0.2

20.0

+2.9

Runtime calibrationAgent Browser +0.4

+2.5

2 dimensions identical: Identity 18.0 · Maintenance 20.0 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Agent Browser and Browser Use, 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 Usebrowser-use/browser-use
HVTrust score	91.3	87.4
Evidence grade	A	A
Coverage grade	B	A
Overall rank	#19	#68
Rank in Browser & Computer Use	#2	#8
GitHub stars	51.3k	121.0k
Last updated	today	today
Build provenance	Yes	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	4.6 / 10	4.9 / 10
License	Apache-2.0	MIT
Downloads	2.4M/wk	2.1M/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	18.2	14.2
Identity & provenance / 18	18.0	18.0
Transparency / 17	12.4	12.7
Maintenance / 20	20.0	20.0
Adoption / 20	19.8	20.0
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	Implemented
External providers	1 — Redis	3 — Anthropic, Google Gemini, OpenAI
Requires API keys	No	Yes
Plugin surface	plugins	—
Provenance drift	Match	Match

Open in the live compare tool → Agent Browser profile Browser Use 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 →