Registry › Compare › Browser Harness vs Browser Use

Browser Harness vs Browser Use

Both are Grade A and 3.4 points apart, so choose on what you weigh most. Browser Harness leads on supply-chain integrity and transparency; Browser Use leads on adoption and rests on broader evidence. Note: Browser Harness's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage B vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types.

A Browser Harness 90.8

Let Claude Code, Codex or Cursor use your real Chrome, logged in as you. One prompt to set up. Open source, MIT.

browser-use/browser-harness · #22 overall · #4 Browser & Computer Use · coverage B (3/5)

Choose Browser Harness if supply-chain integrity and transparency matter most.

+2.9Safety / Integrity: 40% of recent commits signed, against 11%
+1.0Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 6.1 against 4.9

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 adoption matters most.

+1.3Adoption: 121k GitHub stars against 19.1k
A vs BEvidence coverage: 4 of 5 independent signal types, against 3

Where they differ

17.1

Safety / IntegrityBrowser Harness +2.9

14.2

13.7

TransparencyBrowser Harness +1.0

12.7

19.8

MaintenanceBrowser Use +0.2

20.0

18.7

AdoptionBrowser Use +1.3

20.0

+3.5

Runtime calibrationBrowser Harness +1.0

+2.5

1 dimension identical: Identity 18.0 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Browser Harness 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	Browser Harnessbrowser-use/browser-harness	Browser Usebrowser-use/browser-use
HVTrust score	90.8	87.4
Evidence grade	A	A
Coverage grade	B	A
Overall rank	#22	#68
Rank in Browser & Computer Use	#4	#8
GitHub stars	19.1k	121.0k
Last updated	today	today
Build provenance	Yes	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	6.1 / 10	4.9 / 10
License	MIT	MIT
Downloads	2.1M/wk	2.1M/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	17.1	14.2
Identity & provenance / 18	18.0	18.0
Transparency / 17	13.7	12.7
Maintenance / 20	19.8	20.0
Adoption / 20	18.7	20.0
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	Implemented
External providers	1 — Anthropic	3 — Anthropic, Google Gemini, OpenAI
Requires API keys	No	Yes
Plugin surface	plugins	—
Provenance drift	Match	Match

Open in the live compare tool → Browser Harness 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 →