Registry › Compare › Browser Harness vs BrowserOS

Browser Harness vs BrowserOS

Browser Harness leads on trust: 90.5/100 (Grade A) against 66.5/100 (Grade B), a 24.0-point gap. Browser Harness leads on provenance and adoption, and rests on broader evidence; BrowserOS leads on maintenance.

A Browser Harness 90.5

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 · #25 overall · #5 Browser & Computer Use · coverage B (3/5)

Choose Browser Harness if provenance and adoption matter most.

+8.7Adoption: 19k GitHub stars against 14.3k
+7.2Identity / Provenance: package provenance attested, against none
+6.0Safety / Integrity: OSSF Scorecard 6.1 against 5.0
+0.9Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 6.1 against 5.0

B BrowserOS 66.5

🌐 The open-source Agentic browser; alternative to ChatGPT Atlas, Perplexity Comet, Dia.

browseros-ai/BrowserOS · #477 overall · #14 Browser & Computer Use · coverage C (2/5)

Choose BrowserOS if maintenance matters most.

+0.8Maintenance

Where they differ

17.2

Safety / IntegrityBrowser Harness +6.0

11.2

18.0

Identity / ProvenanceBrowser Harness +7.2

10.8

13.7

TransparencyBrowser Harness +0.9

12.8

19.2

MaintenanceBrowserOS +0.8

20.0

18.7

AdoptionBrowser Harness +8.7

10.0

+3.7

Runtime calibrationBrowser Harness +2.0

+1.7

Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Browser Harness and BrowserOS, 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	BrowserOSbrowseros-ai/BrowserOS
HVTrust score	90.5	66.5
Evidence grade	A	B
Coverage grade	B	C
Overall rank	#25	#477
Rank in Browser & Computer Use	#5	#14
GitHub stars	19.0k	14.3k
Last updated	today	today
Build provenance	Yes	No
OSSF Scorecard	6.1 / 10	5.0 / 10
License	MIT	AGPL-3.0
Downloads	2.2M/wk	—
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	17.2	11.2
Identity & provenance / 18	18.0	10.8
Transparency / 17	13.7	12.8
Maintenance / 20	19.2	20.0
Adoption / 20	18.7	10.0
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	Implemented
External providers	1 — Anthropic	1 — Amazon Bedrock
Requires API keys	No	No
Plugin surface	plugins	plugins
Provenance drift	Match	—

Open in the live compare tool → Browser Harness profile BrowserOS 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 →