We tested 30+ open-source web agents across four categories: autonomous agents, computer-use controllers, web scrapers, and developer frameworks.
We ran identical benchmarks using the WebVoyager test suite, which covers 643 tasks across 15 real websites, to measure which tools actually complete multi-step web tasks and which fail when sites use dynamic dropdowns or JavaScript-heavy layouts.
- Autonomous web agents and copilots:
- Web automation & scraping toolkits:
- Agent enablement tools:
- Web control frameworks & libraries for developers:
Open-Source Web Agents: GitHub Stars
Evaluation: Web Voyager Benchmark
Web Voyager Benchmark Results
The benchmark tests 643 tasks across Google, GitHub, Wikipedia, Booking.com, Google Flights, Apple, Amazon, Hugging Face, and 12 other real-world websites. Tasks include form submission, multi-page navigation, search operations, dropdown interactions, and date selection.
Top performers:
- Browser-Use: 89.1%
- Skyvern 2.0: 85.85%
- Agent-E: 73.1%
- WebVoyager: 57.1%
Comparing the tests:
Each team modified the benchmark differently, making direct score comparisons difficult.
Browser-Use tested 586 tasks after removing 55 outdated ones (Apple products no longer available, expired flight dates, recipes deleted from source websites). Tests ran on local machines using GPT-4o for evaluation. Technical changes: migrated from OpenAI API to LangChain, rewrote system prompts.
Skyvern ran 635 tasks in Skyvern Cloud using async cloud browsers, not safe local IPs. Removed 8 tasks with invalid answers. Updated 2023/2024 dates in flight/hotel tasks to 2025. Cloud testing exposes agents to bot detection and CAPTCHA that local testing avoids. Full test recordings available at eval.skyvern.com showing each action and decision. Recently held “Launch Week” (late January) debuting SDK v1+ with support for embedded (local) and remote (cloud) modes, plus new “SOP Upload” feature that ingests standard operating procedure documents to guide web tasks without manual prompting.1
Agent-E tested the complete 643-task dataset without modifications. Used DOM parsing only no vision models or screenshots. Comparison baseline: original WebVoyager agent, not GPT-4o evaluation. Performance dropped on sites with dynamic forms where the DOM structure changes after user input (dropdowns revealing new fields based on selections). Strong on static sites: Wolfram (95.7%), Google Search (90.7%), Google Maps (87.8%). Weak on dynamic sites: Booking.com (27.3%), Google Flights (35.7%).
Critical limitation: These benchmarks run on cooperative sites without aggressive bot protection. Real-world success rates will be lower when facing Cloudflare, DataDome, or similar defenses. Skyvern ran tests on cloud infrastructure to match production conditions, while Browser-Use and Agent-E used local machines with whitelisted IP addresses.
Recent Major Updates
Security Crisis: OpenClaw Malware Distribution
Over 400 malicious “skills” were uploaded to ClawHub (OpenClaw’s marketplace) between late January and early February, distributing credential-stealing malware.2 IBM, Anthropic, and Palo Alto Networks issued warnings. Security researchers now recommend using only isolated environments and verified sources.
OpenClaw Viral Growth
OpenClaw (formerly Moltbot/Clawdbot) reached 147,000 GitHub stars, the fastest-growing open-source AI project. Runs locally, integrates with messaging platforms, and uses Model Context Protocol for 100+ services.3 Cloudflare released Moltworker middleware to support its infrastructure.4
Moltbook: AI Agent Social Network
AI-only social network launched late January, reached 1.5 million agents within days. Agents autonomously post and interact while humans observe.5
Model Context Protocol Standardization
MCP became the dominant protocol for agent-to-tool integration, with more than 100 servers available. Management and governance are now critical for enterprise deployments.
NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Models
NVIDIA released the Nemotron 3 family (Nano, Super, Ultra) optimized for agentic AI, delivering 4x higher throughput. Includes NeMo Gym and Agentic Safety Dataset on GitHub and Hugging Face.6
Autonomous Web Agents and Copilots
Tools that navigate websites and complete multi-step tasks with minimal guidance.
General-Purpose Autonomous Agents
OpenClaw (formerly Moltbot/Clawdbot): Run this on your local machine to automate tasks across messaging apps, calendars, and email. Tell it “schedule a meeting with the team for next Tuesday and send calendar invites,” and it handles the entire workflow. Uses Model Context Protocol to connect with 100+ services without cloud API calls.
Who uses it: Early adopters willing to manage security risks for local automation. Users who want conversational interfaces for desktop workflows.
Limitations:
- Major security vulnerabilities in the skill ecosystem (400+ malicious packages in one week)
- Still in rapid development with frequent breaking changes
- Documentation is inconsistent due to multiple rebranding cycles
- Resource-intensive (requires significant local compute)
AgenticSeek: Replace cloud-based commercial services with a local alternative that doesn’t send browsing data to external servers. Install it on your machine, describe what you need (“extract all product prices from this page”), and it handles clicking and data collection. Python-based, runs entirely self-hosted.
Who uses it: Privacy-conscious users who won’t share browsing data. Organizations with data residency requirements.
Limitations:
- Limited to single-machine concurrency (5-10 browser instances)
- No built-in proxy rotation or anti-detection features
- Requires Python environment setup and maintenance
- Slower than cloud solutions for large-scale tasks
Auto-GPT: Handles web browsing alongside file operations and code execution. Deploy via the browser interface or the command line. When you assign a task like “research competitor pricing and save to a spreadsheet,” it determines which websites to visit, what data to retrieve, and how to organize the output.
Who uses it: Developers building custom automation workflows. Users comfortable with command-line tools.
Limitations:
- Lacks web-specific features like proxy rotation and cookie management
- No built-in bot detection avoidance (sites with Cloudflare will block it)
- Resource-intensive (spins up multiple browser instances)
- Requires manual prompt engineering for complex tasks
AgentGPT: Configure agents directly in your browser without writing code. Develop specialized agents such as “ResearchGPT” or “DataGPT” that decompose goals into steps. The platform handles orchestration. You describe what you want accomplished. Self-hostable if you don’t want to use their hosted version.
Who uses it: Non-technical users who need simple automation. Teams want shared agent configurations.
Limitations:
- Limited customization compared to coded solutions
- Performance bottlenecks on complex multi-step tasks
- Hosted version sends data to their servers (self-hosting required for privacy)
- No advanced features like browser fingerprinting or CAPTCHA handling
SuperAGI: Framework for building custom autonomous agents with templates for common workflows. Extend it with your own logic. Handles browser automation as one component of larger workflows. Deploy locally or push to cloud infrastructure.
Who uses it: Development teams building production agent systems. Organizations need customizable automation frameworks.
Limitations:
- Steep learning curve (requires understanding agent architecture)
- Template library still limited (requires custom development for most use cases)
- Documentation gaps for advanced features
- Active development means breaking changes between versions
Nanobrowser: Chrome extension approach install it, then control agents from your browser toolbar. Good for quick tasks like “extract all emails from this page” or “fill out this form with data from my spreadsheet.”
Who uses it: Casual users needing occasional browser automation. Users who won’t set up servers or Python environments.
Limitations:
- Can’t scale beyond a few tabs (no concurrent processing)
- No integration with backend automation pipelines
- Limited to the Chrome browser
- Extension permissions raise security concerns
OpenManus: Open-source alternative to commercial browser automation services. Runs browser tasks that take hours or days, like monitoring sites for price changes or waiting for products to come back in stock. Deploy locally with Python and Docker, keep it running in the background.
Recent update: DeepWisdom (OpenManus parent company) officially rebranded its core agent technology to Atoms in mid-January. The new Atoms framework shifts focus from developer hobbyist tools to commercial-grade agent deployment with built-in modules for payments and authentication.7
Who uses it: Users running long-duration monitoring tasks. Developers are building automated notification systems.
Limitations:
- Requires Docker and Python setup
- No built-in proxy support (sites will detect repeated requests from the same IP)
- Memory leaks on long-running tasks (requires periodic restarts)
- Rebranding to Atoms may cause documentation confusion
Computer-Use Agents
Desktop automation that controls browsers as one piece of broader computer workflows.
OpenInterpreter: Terminal-based agent that executes Python, JavaScript, and shell scripts based on what you type. Ask it to “scrape this site and analyze the data in pandas,” and it generates the scraping code, executes it, and then performs the analysis. Browser automation integrates with file system access and data processing.
Who uses it: Developers comfortable with terminal interfaces. Data scientists are combining web scraping with analysis workflows.
When it makes sense: You need automation that spans web browsing and local computation. You want to inspect and modify generated code before execution. Your workflows involve data transformation after collection.
Limitations:
- Terminal-only interface (no GUI)
- Security risk (executes arbitrary code on your machine)
- No sandboxing by default (can access any file or system resource)
- Learning curve for non-programmers
UI-TARS: Research framework from academia that takes screenshots of your desktop, analyzes them with vision models, then generates commands to control GUI elements. Built for testing new approaches to desktop automation, not production use.
Who uses it: Academic researchers exploring vision-based automation. Labs testing multimodal control systems.
When it makes sense: You’re conducting research on vision-based automation. You need to experiment with screenshot analysis approaches. You’re writing academic papers about GUI automation.
Limitations:
- Not production-ready (research prototype)
- High latency (vision model processing takes 2-3 seconds per action)
- Expensive (GPT-4V charges per image token)
- No error recovery or retry logic
AutoBrowser MCP: MCP server that enables Claude to control Chrome browsers through Model Context Protocol, providing vision-based browser interaction capabilities. Claude sees your browser screen, decides what to click, and executes the action. Runs as a Chrome extension plus a local server.
Who uses it: Claude users wanting browser control. Developers building MCP-based automation systems.
When it makes sense: You’re already using Claude and want to add browser automation. You prefer conversational control over programmatic APIs. Vision-based interaction is required for complex layouts.
Limitations:
- Requires Claude API access (not available in all regions)
- Vision model costs add up quickly
- Latency is higher than that of DOM-based approaches
- Limited to the Chrome browser
Open Operator: Browser-Use team’s answer to OpenAI’s Operator. Provides language models with direct access to Chrome via simplified DOM view. Run it in fully autonomous mode or enable approval mode, in which you confirm each action before execution. Install via Python or browser extension.
Recent update: Browser-Use announced strategic integration with Parallel AI in late January, enabling multi-threaded web searches. The update enables agents to execute up to 20 browser steps per minute, matching or exceeding human performance on complex research tasks.8
Who uses it: Teams already using the Browser-Use framework. Organizations want approval workflows for agent actions.
When it makes sense: You need autonomous browsing with human oversight. Your workflows require speed (multi-threaded execution). You’re building on the Browser-Use ecosystem.
Limitations:
- Requires Browser-Use framework installation
- Approval mode slows down automation significantly
- Limited anti-detection features (sites with bot protection will block it)
- Python-only (no JavaScript/TypeScript support)
Claude Cowork: Research preview announced recently that expands Claude’s “Computer Use” API to interact directly with file systems and browser environments within a unified desktop application. Sets new benchmark for open-source agents to match.9
Who uses it: Early adopters with research preview access. Teams are evaluating next-generation computer-use capabilities.
When it makes sense: You want unified file + browser automation. You’re comfortable with experimental features that may change. You need vision-based desktop control.
Limitations:
- Research preview only (limited availability)
- Proprietary (not open-source, included for comparison)
- Pricing not yet announced
- Feature set may change significantly before general release
Web Navigation Agents
Focus specifically on multi-step website workflows.
Agent-E: Reads page HTML to find clickable elements and navigation paths. Uses “DOM Distillation” to strip pages down to essential interactive elements, plus “Skill Harvesting” to remember successful patterns. Scored 73.1% on WebVoyager benchmark using pure text, no vision models.
Who uses it: Organizations prioritizing cost over accuracy. Developers building DOM-based automation systems.
When it makes sense: You need fast, cheap automation on static websites. Your target sites don’t use JavaScript-heavy dynamic forms. You can tolerate 73% success rate in exchange for lower costs.
Limitations:
- No built-in error recovery when the DOM structure changes unexpectedly
- Struggles with dynamic forms where dropdown menus reveal new options based on selections
- Performance drops significantly on JavaScript-heavy sites
- Poor results on booking sites
AutoWebGLM: Simplifies HTML before feeding it to language models. Complex pages get reduced to core navigation elements and form fields. Uses reinforcement learning to improve navigation decisions over time. Runs self-hosted via Python.
Who uses it: Research teams exploring RL-based web automation. Organizations with compute resources for model training.
When it makes sense: You can invest in training custom models for your specific websites. Your workflows are repetitive enough to benefit from RL optimization. You have Python ML infrastructure.
Limitations:
- Limited documentation and community support
- Requires training phase before deployment (not plug-and-play)
- Needs significant examples to learn effective policies
- Breaks when websites redesign layouts
Vision-Based Navigation Agents
Combine screenshots with text analysis to interpret visual page layout.
Autogen WebSurfer Extension: Plug into Microsoft’s AutoGen framework to add web browsing. Requires Playwright installation. The framework lets you create agent teams, one agent searches while another processes results, and a third interacts with you.
Who uses it: Teams already using the AutoGen framework. Microsoft ecosystem users.
When it makes sense: You’re building multi-agent systems within AutoGen. You need orchestrated agent collaboration. You want Microsoft’s support and documentation.
Real limitations:
- Limited examples and community projects
- Requires adopting the entire AutoGen framework (can’t use standalone)
- Framework overhead is not worth it for simple automation tasks
- Steep learning curve for multi-agent orchestration
Skyvern: Three-phase system: planner breaks tasks into steps, actor executes them, validator confirms success. Takes screenshots to visually identify buttons and forms. This approach addresses JavaScript-heavy sites in which the DOM changes after page load. Scored 85.85% on WebVoyager. Deploy self-hosted or use their managed cloud.
WebVoyager: A three-phase system where the planner breaks tasks into steps, the actor executes them, and the validator confirms success. Takes screenshots to visually identify buttons and forms. Handles JavaScript-heavy sites where DOM changes after page load. Scored 85.85% on WebVoyager. Deploy self-hosted or use a managed cloud.
Recent update: Skyvern held Launch Week in late January, releasing SDK v1+ with Python and TypeScript client libraries. The SDK supports both embedded (local) and remote (cloud) modes, with browser state sharing over Chrome DevTools Protocol. Can be combined with Playwright actions to enable hybrid automation workflows.10
Who uses it: Organizations needing high accuracy on modern web apps. Teams willing to pay vision model costs for better results.
When it makes sense: Your target sites use heavy JavaScript and dynamic layouts. You need 85%+ accuracy. You can afford 10-20x higher costs than DOM parsing. Your workflows justify cloud infrastructure.
Limitations:
- Self-hosted version requires significant compute for vision models
- Expensive (GPT-4V charges per image token; each page view costs 10-20x more than DOM parsing)
- Slower than DOM approaches (2-3 seconds per page for vision processing)
- Cloud deployment exposes you to bot detection
LiteWebAgent: Vision language model with memory and planning that controls Chrome through the DevTools Protocol. Maintains context across page loads, remembering what it saw on previous pages when making navigation decisions. Python framework, self-hosted deployment.
Who uses it: Developers building custom vision-based agents. Teams need cross-page memory.
When it makes sense: Your workflows require remembering information across multiple pages. You need vision capabilities but want more control than Skyvern. You can maintain Python ML infrastructure.
Limitations:
- Requires significant computing for vision models
- Memory architecture increases complexity and failure modes
- Limited testing on production websites with bot detection
- Small community (fewer examples and integrations than alternatives)
Agent enablement tools
Frameworks that let LLMs or users send commands to browsers without autonomous task planning.
Natural Language to Web Action
LaVague: you say, “Click the green button.” LaVague finds it and clicks it. Handles element identification across different page layouts. Good for repetitive tasks where you know exactly what you want but don’t want to write selectors. Python-based, runs self-hosted.
ZeroStep: Turns conversational instructions into Playwright test code. You describe the action in plain English, it generates the Playwright commands. Speeds up test writing if you’re already using Playwright. Node.js CLI tool.
LLM-Browser Bridges
Connect language models directly to browser controls.
Browser-Use: Takes messy DOM and restructures it for LLMs. Strips out irrelevant elements, labels interactive components, and provides control interfaces. This is what let Browser-Use hit 89.1% on WebVoyager. Available as a Python library or API, deploy self-hosted or use their cloud.
Browserless: Remote Chrome instances you control via REST or WebSocket. Spin up hundreds of browsers in the cloud without managing infrastructure. Each browser runs headless, so no GUI overhead. Use their hosted API or Docker for self-hosting.
ZeroStep (Playwright AI): AI layer on top of Playwright. Write prompts instead of selectors. Combines Playwright’s reliability with LLM flexibility for identifying elements. Requires Node.js and Playwright installation.
Web Automation & Scraping Toolkits
Task-specific tools, where you initiate each job individually.
Browser Automation Extensions
PulsarRPA: Chrome extension for data extraction. Point it at a table or list, show it what to extract, and it handles the rest. Includes backend for scheduling and storing results.
Who uses it: Non-technical users needing regular data extraction. Business analysts are pulling data into spreadsheets.
When it makes sense: You extract data from the same sites repeatedly. You don’t want to write code. You need scheduling and result storage. Your target sites don’t block browser extensions.
Limitations:
- Chrome-only (no Firefox or Safari)
- Breaks when target sites change layouts
- No proxy support (sites detect repeated requests from same IP)
- Limited to tabular data extraction
VimGPT: Experimental project where GPT-4 Vision controls your browser through Vimium keyboard shortcuts. The model sees screenshots and generates keyboard commands.
Who uses it: Researchers exploring vision + keyboard control. Vim enthusiasts are curious about AI automation.
When it makes sense: You’re conducting research on keyboard-driven automation. You seek to understand the capabilities of vision models. You’re not deploying production automation.
Limitations:
- Experimental only (not practical for real work)
- Requires Vimium extension plus Python backend
- High latency (vision processing + command generation)
- Expensive (GPT-4V costs per screenshot)
AI Scrapers and Crawlers
Crawl4AI: A crawler that uses LLMs to decide what’s important on a page. Instead of grabbing everything, it identifies relevant content based on your goal. Python-based, integrates with standard scraping libraries.
Recent growth: Reached #1 on GitHub trending and surpassed 58,000 stars. Optimized for LLM integration with markdown output and BM25 content filtering. Popular choice for RAG pipelines requiring local-first deployment.11
Who uses it: Developers building RAG systems. Teams needing local LLM support without API costs.
When it makes sense: You’re building LLM applications that need web data. You want markdown-formatted output. You need a local deployment without cloud API dependencies. Your use case involves content filtering and relevance ranking.
Limitations:
- Requires LLM running locally or via API (not standalone)
- Slower than traditional scrapers (LLM processing per page)
- May miss important content if LLM judges incorrectly
- Higher resource usage than rule-based scrapers
FireCrawl: Converts websites into clean Markdown or JSON. Handles navigation, JavaScript rendering, and content extraction. Output structured for feeding into LLM context windows. Node.js library or CLI.
Who uses it: LLM application developers. Teams are building AI systems that process web content.
When it makes sense: You need clean text extraction for LLM processing. Your target sites use JavaScript rendering. You want structured output (Markdown/JSON). You’re building Node.js applications.
Limitations:
- Node.js only (no Python bindings)
- Opinionated Markdown conversion (may lose formatting you need)
- Limited customization of extraction rules
- No built-in rate limiting or anti-detection
GPT-crawler: Crawls sites and outputs training data for custom GPTs. Point it at documentation or a knowledge base, it extracts content and formats it for fine-tuning. Python CLI tool.
Who uses it: Teams building custom GPT models. Organizations are creating domain-specific AI assistants.
When it makes sense: You’re fine-tuning language models. You need structured training data from web sources. Your content is documentation or knowledge bases. You can run Python CLI tools.
Limitations:
- Output format specific to GPT fine-tuning (not general-purpose)
- No incremental updates (re-crawl entire site for updates)
- Limited handling of authentication or paywalls
- Assumes static content structure
ScrapeGraphAI: Builds knowledge graphs from crawled content. Good for documentation sites where you need to understand relationships between concepts. Outputs structured summaries or fact graphs. Python deployment.
Who uses it: Knowledge management teams. Researchers bare uilding concept maps from web content.
When it makes sense: You need relationship extraction, not just content. Your target sites are documentation or educational content. You’re building knowledge bases or concept maps. You have Python infrastructure.
Limitations:
- Complex setup (requires graph database and NLP models)
- Slower than simple scrapers (entity extraction + relationship mapping)
- Quality depends on the source content structure
- Limited to text (doesn’t handle tables or images well)
AutoScraper: Learn-by-example scraper. Show it one page with the data you want, it figures out the pattern and applies it to similar pages. Lightweight Python library for simple extraction tasks.
Who uses it: Developers needing quick extraction without writing XPath or CSS selectors. Teams are prototyping scraping workflows.
When it makes sense: Your target pages follow consistent patterns. You don’t want to write selectors manually. You need quick prototypes. Your sites don’t change layouts frequently.
Limitations:
- Breaks when page layouts change
- Limited to similar page structures (can’t generalize to different sites)
- No JavaScript rendering support
- Simple pattern matching (no AI reasoning about content)
LLM Scraper: Send a page to an LLM and ask, “Extract all product prices” or “Find contact information.” The model interprets your intent and pulls relevant data. Flexible but more expensive than rule-based scrapers. Python-based.
Who uses it: Teams needing flexible extraction without writing rules. Developers building one-off extraction tasks.
When it makes sense: Page structures vary too much for rule-based extraction. You need semantic understanding (“find the author’s name”). Cost isn’t your primary concern. You want quick development without selector engineering.
Limitations:
- Expensive (LLM API costs per page)
- Slower than rule-based scrapers (API latency)
- May extract wrong data if prompt isn’t clear
- No guarantee of consistent field extraction across pages
AI Search Tools
BingGPT: Chat interface that combines Bing search with GPT responses. Ask questions, get answers with sources. Desktop application, not browser-based.
BraveGPT: AI rowser extension that adds GPT responses to Brave Search results. See both traditional search results and an AI summary side-by-side. Overlays directly onto search pages.
Web Control Frameworks for Developers
Low-level libraries for programmatic browser control.
Testing Frameworks
Playwright: Microsoft’s cross-browser automation. Supports Chromium, Firefox, WebKit. Built-in waits, network interception, and mobile emulation. Available in JavaScript, Python, .NET, and Java. Industry standard for modern web testing.
Selenium: The original browser automation framework. Works across all major browsers. Larger ecosystem but older architecture. Language bindings for Python, Java, C#, Ruby, more. WebDriver protocol standard.
taiko: ThoughtWorks framework with readable syntax. Good for functional testing where test readability matters. Node.js only.
Automation Libraries
Puppeteer: Google’s library for controlling Chrome/Chromium. High-level API for screenshots, PDF generation, and scraping. Node.js ecosystem works with TypeScript. Standard choice for headless Chrome automation.
Browser-Use: Listed earlier as LLM bridge, but also works as a developer automation library. Converts DOM into sa tructured format, handles navigation and interaction. Python library with API option.
What Makes These Web Agents Different
Browser-Use scored 89.1% on WebVoyager tests (after removing 55 outdated tasks), while Agent-E reached 73.1% on the full dataset. Browser-Use uses autonomous task planning with LangChain integration. Agent-E parses DOM structure directly without vision models, which runs faster but struggles when websites use dynamic dropdowns or reveal new options based on user choices.
Autonomy Levels
Fully autonomous agents like Browser-Use, Skyvern, and Agent-E accept high-level goals (“find cheapest Paris flight”) and plan their own navigation steps. They adapt to unexpected elements like cookie banners or captchas. However, each decision requires an LLM call, increasing both cost and response time.
Step-by-step guidance tools like LaVague and ZeroStep execute specific commands (“click search button,” “enter text in field 2”). Faster execution since they skip planning overhead. But if a site redesigns its layout, you need to update instructions manually.
Manual coding frameworks like Playwright and Selenium require explicit code for every click, form fill, and navigation. Tests run identically each time until the site changes an element ID or class name. Then selectors break and you rewrite the code.
How They Interpret Pages
Vision-based processing: Skyvern 2.0, WebVoyager, and VimGPT capture screenshots and send them to vision models like GPT-4V. They identify buttons and forms by looking at the rendered page.
Skyvern 2.0 actually uses a planner-actor-validator loop. The planner breaks down complex tasks into smaller goals, the actor executes them, and the validator confirms whether each goal succeeded. This three-phase approach helped Skyvern jump from 45% (single-prompt version) to 68.7% (with planner) to 85.85% (with validator checking if actions actually worked).
Vision processing works on JavaScript-heavy sites where the DOM rebuilds after page load. But GPT-4V charges per image token, making each page view 10-20x more expensive than reading HTML. Vision models also add 2-3 seconds per page compared to DOM parsing.
DOM parsing: Browser-Use and Agent-E read page HTML directly. They scan the code for clickable elements, input fields, and navigation links.
Agent-E uses “DOM Distillation” to reduce complex pages to essential elements, plus “Skill Harvesting” to remember and reuse successful interaction patterns. It beat the multimodal WebVoyager agent (which uses vision) on sites like Huggingface, Apple, and Amazon using only text. But Agent-E’s planning goes out of sync when websites dynamically reveal new options – like dropdown menus that change based on your selections.
DOM parsing costs less and runs faster. Browser-Use’s 89.1% accuracy comes partly from LangChain integration and updated prompts, not just skipping vision calls. But DOM approaches struggle when sites use shadow DOM, obfuscated class names, or heavy JavaScript manipulation.
Combined approach: LiteWebAgent and AutoWebGLM parse DOM for structure, then use vision to verify what users actually see. More accurate than DOM alone, cheaper than pure vision, but you’re running two systems per page.
Specialization
Auto-GPT and AgenticSeek handle web browsing alongside file operations and code execution. They lack web-specific features like proxy rotation and cookie management, limiting effectiveness on sites with bot detection.
Agent-E and WebVoyager only do web navigation. Agent-E achieved 73.1% overall on the full 643-task WebVoyager dataset, beating the multimodal WebVoyager agent’s 57.1%. Strong performance on sites like Wolfram (95.7%), Google Search (90.7%), and Google Maps (87.8%). Weak on dynamic sites: only 27.3% on Booking.com and 35.7% on Google Flights where dropdown menus and form fields change based on user selections.
Crawl4AI and FireCrawl extract data and convert pages to Markdown or JSON. They don’t fill forms or click through workflows. Use them when you need content in structured format, not when you need to complete multi-step tasks.
Playwright and Selenium automate browser testing. They produce identical results across runs, essential for regression tests. But this determinism means they can’t adapt. When a site changes, your test suite breaks.
Deployment Options
Local execution: AgenticSeek, Nanobrowser, and OpenInterpreter run on your machine. Your browsing data stays local, and you avoid API costs. But a typical workstation handles 5-10 concurrent browser instances before CPU/RAM maxes out.
Cloud APIs: Browserless provides remote Chrome instances via REST or WebSocket. You can spin up hundreds of parallel sessions with automatic proxy rotation. Each request adds 100-300ms latency compared to local browsers, and your traffic routes through their servers unless you self-host with Docker.
Flexible deployment: Skyvern runs locally during development, then deploys to cloud for production. Their benchmark actually ran in Skyvern Cloud (not local machines) to test real-world conditions with async cloud browsers and realistic IP addresses. Most benchmarks run on safe local IPs with good browser fingerprints, which doesn’t match production reality.
Integration Patterns
AutoGen’s WebSurfer requires adopting Microsoft’s entire multi-agent framework. You get built-in agent orchestration and memory management, but you can’t easily integrate it with existing systems.
Browser-Use and Playwright work as standalone libraries. Drop them into any Python or Node.js project. But you’ll build your own agent coordination, error handling, and result storage.
Nanobrowser and BraveGPT install as Chrome extensions. No server setup required—add to browser and start. Can’t scale beyond a few concurrent tabs, and they don’t integrate with backend automation pipelines.
Production Considerations
Skyvern and Browserless include residential proxy support, randomized mouse movements, and browser fingerprint rotation. These features prevent IP bans and CAPTCHA triggers on protected sites.
WebVoyager and AutoWebGLM focus on navigation algorithms. Agent-E reached 73.1% using text-only DOM parsing, beating WebVoyager’s 57.1% multimodal approach. But production sites with Cloudflare or DataDome will block agents without proper anti-detection.
Important benchmark context: Browser-Use and Agent-E ran tests locally with safe IP addresses. Skyvern specifically ran their tests in cloud infrastructure to match real production conditions, where you face bot detection, browser fingerprinting, and CAPTCHA challenges. The benchmark tests themselves run on cooperative sites without aggressive bot protection, so real-world success rates will be lower than these numbers suggest.
Benchmark sources
Reference Links
Cem's work has been cited by leading global publications including Business Insider, Forbes, Washington Post, global firms like Deloitte, HPE and NGOs like World Economic Forum and supranational organizations like European Commission. You can see more reputable companies and resources that referenced AIMultiple.
Throughout his career, Cem served as a tech consultant, tech buyer and tech entrepreneur. He advised enterprises on their technology decisions at McKinsey & Company and Altman Solon for more than a decade. He also published a McKinsey report on digitalization.
He led technology strategy and procurement of a telco while reporting to the CEO. He has also led commercial growth of deep tech company Hypatos that reached a 7 digit annual recurring revenue and a 9 digit valuation from 0 within 2 years. Cem's work in Hypatos was covered by leading technology publications like TechCrunch and Business Insider.
Cem regularly speaks at international technology conferences. He graduated from Bogazici University as a computer engineer and holds an MBA from Columbia Business School.
Be the first to comment
Your email address will not be published. All fields are required.