Browserbase vs Autotab: Which Browser Automation Tool Works Better? (December 2025)

The comparison between Browserbase and Autotab matters because they represent two fundamentally different ways to automate browsers. With Browserbase, you write Selenium or Playwright scripts that run on their cloud infrastructure. With Autotab, you show tasks through recordings and the system replicates them. Both approaches work until you hit the maintenance wall that comes with selector-based automation.

TLDR:

• Browserbase hosts cloud browsers but requires you to code all automation in Playwright or Selenium
• Autotab uses record-and-playback that breaks when websites change their layout or structure
• Both tools need constant maintenance when sites update since they rely on brittle selectors
• Skyvern uses LLMs and computer vision to automate workflows without XPath selectors or recordings

What Browserbase Is and How It Works

Browserbase provides cloud-hosted headless browsers that developers connect to using browser automation frameworks like Puppeteer, Playwright, and Selenium. Developers use the Browserbase API to control browsers directly in the cloud for browser automation and web scraping, automated testing, and building web agents.

The product requires developers to integrate browser automation frameworks into their existing code. You write your automation scripts in Puppeteer or Playwright, then point them to Browserbase's remote browser instances instead of running browsers locally. Browserbase includes features like stealth mode and CAPTCHA handling, session logging, and autoscaling. Session logging lets you review what happened during browser sessions for debugging purposes.

The product targets teams building web agents or scaling browser automation for complex workflows.

What Autotab Is and How It Works

Autotab uses a record-and-playback approach where you show tasks and the system learns by watching. Once trained, it can run multiple instances in parallel.

The tool generates automation scripts by recording your browser actions. As you click, type, and navigate, Autotab captures those interactions and converts them into code that replicates the sequence. This works for repetitive tasks like filling forms, updating leads in a CRM, or processing support tickets. Autotab runs autonomously in a secure browser on local infrastructure instead of in the cloud. You show workflows through video messages or documents, similar to training a new employee.

The quality of your demonstrations matters. If you miss a step or handle an edge case incorrectly during training, the automation will replicate that mistake. The system needs additional training examples when it encounters variations from what you originally showed it.

Comparing Browserbase and Autotab

We used the following criteria to compare the two approaches:

• Infrastructure requirements and technical overhead
• Handling website changes and maintenance burden
• Workflow complexity and reasoning capabilities
• Authentication, form filling, and production workflows

Infrastructure Requirements and Technical Overhead

So what are the infrastructure requirements of Browserbase and Autotab? What is the technical overhead of each solution? The details are below.

• Browserbase runs browser instances in their cloud infrastructure. You send commands through their API, which removes the need to maintain your own browser servers. Every automation task runs on their hardware, so your scripts depend on their uptime and network latency. You still write all your automation code using Playwright, Puppeteer, or Selenium. The code just connects to Browserbase's remote browsers instead of local ones. Scaling means purchasing more browser hours and concurrent session capacity through their pricing tiers.
• Autotab runs locally on your hardware. You provide the machines, memory, and CPU for each browser session. Running 50 parallel automations requires local infrastructure capable of supporting that load. Scaling requires adding physical resources. More automation capacity means provisioning additional machines, creating an operational ceiling that cloud-hosted solutions don't face.

Handling Website Changes and Maintenance Burden

Both tools struggle when websites update their structure. Browser automation breaks because it targets specific page elements that change frequently.

• Browserbase hosts browser infrastructure but doesn't solve selector brittleness. Your Selenium or Playwright scripts still use XPath selectors, CSS selectors, or DOM queries to find elements. When a website redesigns a form or changes class names, those selectors fail. The maintenance cycle: automation breaks, you get error reports, a developer finds which selectors failed, they inspect the updated site for new selectors, they update code, and redeploy. This repeats for every website change. Sites that update frequently create constant overhead.
• Autotab's recordings capture element positions and attributes during demonstration. When websites change their layout or DOM structure, recordings no longer match the current page. Automation fails because elements moved or no longer exist. You fix this by re-recording the workflow on the updated website. The system captures the new structure and generates updated automation. This requires your time whenever sites change.

Workflow Complexity and Reasoning Capabilities

When it comes down to it, a browser automation tool is really only as good as it is easy to use. When you have to poor a tremendous effort into workflow configurations, for example, the tool's complexity may far outweigh the automation benefits. But that workflow complexity is also compounded by the solution's reasoning capabilities. If it's limited, the workflow breaks because it's tied to DOM elements. Here's how they each approach these challenges:

• Browserbase offers browser infrastructure without built-in reasoning capabilities. All workflow logic lives in your Playwright or Selenium scripts. Need to validate form field formats, match equivalent products across sites, or choose buttons based on page content? You write that logic yourself. This becomes painful when working across multiple sites with different structures. A procurement workflow checking five vendor sites needs separate code paths for each layout. You build and maintain decision trees for every scenario.
• Autotab uses demonstration-based training. It captures your exact steps and replays them for identical scenarios. Handling variations means recording additional demonstrations for each case.

Neither tool reasons about page content on the fly. If a form asks "Are you over 65?" and your workflow needs to interpret that question contextually, you'll code that logic manually or show every variation. Tasks requiring judgment calls about equivalency or context still need manual programming or extensive retraining.

Authentication, Form Filling, and Production Workflows

Browser automation may have to deal with website features, like forms and authentication, which have very specific requirements (i.e., 2FA). How do the two solutions handle complex requirements in production workflows?

• Browserbase executes the authentication code you write in Playwright, Puppeteer, or Selenium. Your scripts control login sequences, 2FA flows, and form submissions. You code each step and the cloud browsers run those instructions. 2FA requires programming token retrieval and handling authenticator apps or SMS codes. File downloads need configuration for where retrieved files go. Cookie persistence, session management, and proxy routing require explicit setup through their API.
• Autotab replicates authentication steps you show during training. You log in once while recording and complete any 2FA steps. The system captures those actions and repeats them. This fails when authentication changes. If 2FA switches between email verification and authenticator apps, you need separate demonstrations for each path. Forms with conditional fields require showing every combination during training.

As for production, Browserbase bills for concurrent browser sessions and API access. Autotab production depends on your local machines staying running for scheduled executions. Hardware downtime stops automation.

At the end of the day, neither tool validates form inputs or adapts authentication based on context. Browserbase requires coding validations while Autotab requires recording them.

Side-by-Side Comparison

Below is a side-by-side comparison of Browserbase and Autotab, but we've also included Skyvern as a third option.

Why Skyvern Provides a Better Solution for Browser Automation

Skyvern uses LLMs and computer vision to read web pages without XPath selectors or recorded workflows. Sites can redesign their layouts and your automations continue working because Skyvern interprets page content contextually. You skip rewriting selectors or re-recording flows after each site update.

The API accepts workflow definitions without Playwright integration, cloud browser setup, or local infrastructure, making it a powerful intelligent process automation solution. You describe what needs automation and receive results. Implementation takes days instead of weeks spent connecting frameworks and managing browser instances.

Workflows requiring judgment work through built-in reasoning. Skyvern finds equivalent products across supplier sites, answers dynamic eligibility questions, and extracts data from varying schemas without custom code per scenario. Learn more about what tasks you can automate with Skyvern. One workflow definition works across multiple sites with different structures. Authentication, 2FA, form filling, file downloads, CAPTCHA solving, and proxy support ship standard. You don't build these through Selenium or show them through recordings.

Lastly, Skyvern offers open source self-hosting or managed cloud service with transparent pricing. No hidden browser hour charges or infrastructure fees that scale with usage.

Final thoughts on browser automation approaches

Browser automation tools fall into two camps: code-based frameworks that break with every site update, or recording systems that need constant retraining. Browserbase gives you cloud browsers but you maintain all the selectors, while Autotab captures your actions but fails when layouts change. Skyvern interprets page content on the fly so websites can redesign without breaking your workflows. Try our open source version or contact us about managed hosting.

FAQ

What's the main difference between Browserbase and Autotab?

Browserbase provides cloud-hosted browser infrastructure that you control through Playwright, Puppeteer, or Selenium scripts, while Autotab uses a record-and-playback approach where you show tasks and it replicates them. Browserbase requires coding your automation logic, while Autotab requires recording demonstrations for each workflow variation.

Which tool is better for teams without dedicated developers?

Neither tool works well without developer resources. Browserbase requires writing and maintaining Playwright or Selenium code, while Autotab needs technical users who can troubleshoot when recordings break and re-record workflows after website changes.

How do Browserbase and Autotab handle website redesigns?

Both tools break when websites change their structure. Browserbase requires developers to update selectors in your code and redeploy, while Autotab requires re-recording the entire workflow on the updated website.

Can these tools handle complex workflows that require decision-making?

No, neither tool includes built-in reasoning capabilities. Browserbase requires you to code all decision logic manually in your scripts, while Autotab requires recording separate demonstrations for every possible scenario or variation you might encounter.

What infrastructure do I need to run each tool in production?

Browserbase runs entirely in their cloud, so you only need API access and pay for concurrent browser sessions. Autotab runs on your local hardware, so you need to provision and maintain machines with enough memory and CPU to handle all your parallel automation tasks.