Registry › Compare › Browser Harness vs OpenClaw

Browser Harness vs OpenClaw

Both are Grade A and 0.4 points apart, so choose on what you weigh most. OpenClaw leads on supply-chain integrity and 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 91.0

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 · #17 overall · #2 Browser & Computer Use · coverage B (3/5)

Browser Harness doesn't lead on any scored dimension in this pair.

A OpenClaw 90.6

The AI that really does things. Any OS. Any Platform. The lobster way. 🦞

openclaw/openclaw · #19 overall · #3 Browser & Computer Use · coverage A (4/5)

Choose OpenClaw if supply-chain integrity and adoption matter most.

+2.6Safety / Integrity: 100% of recent commits signed, against 38%
+1.1Adoption: 3.4M weekly downloads against 3.3M
A vs BEvidence coverage: 4 of 5 independent signal types, against 3

Where they differ

17.0

Safety / IntegrityOpenClaw +2.6

19.6

13.7

TransparencyBrowser Harness +0.4

13.3

19.9

MaintenanceOpenClaw +0.1

20.0

18.9

AdoptionOpenClaw +1.1

20.0

+3.5

Runtime calibrationBrowser Harness +3.8

-0.3

1 dimension identical: Identity 18.0 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Browser Harness and OpenClaw, 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	OpenClawopenclaw/openclaw
HVTrust score	91.0	90.6
Evidence grade	A	A
Coverage grade	B	A
Overall rank	#17	#19
Rank in Browser & Computer Use	#2	#3
GitHub stars	18.8k	393.8k
Last updated	1d ago	today
Build provenance	Yes	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	6.1 / 10	5.7 / 10
License	MIT	MIT
Downloads	3.3M/wk	3.4M/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	17.0	19.6
Identity & provenance / 18	18.0	18.0
Transparency / 17	13.7	13.3
Maintenance / 20	19.9	20.0
Adoption / 20	18.9	20.0
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	Implemented
External providers	1 — Anthropic	4 — Anthropic, Google Gemini, OpenAI, …
Requires API keys	No	No
Plugin surface	plugins	extensions
Provenance drift	Match	Match

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