Browserbase vs UiPath: Which Is Better for Automation? (February 2026)

Your automation breaks every time a website changes, and you're trying to figure out which platform will reduce that maintenance burden. Browserbase offers cloud browser infrastructure with natural language methods through Stagehand. UiPath provides enterprise RPA with visual workflow design. The reality is that both still depend on selectors and UI descriptors that need manual updates when websites change their structure.

TLDR:

• Browserbase provides cloud browser infrastructure while UiPath offers enterprise RPA software
• Both require manual selector updates when websites change layouts, creating ongoing maintenance costs
• UiPath starts at $250/month per user; Browserbase charges $0.50 per 5-minute session
• Skyvern uses LLMs and computer vision to automate browser workflows without brittle selectors

What Browserbase Does and Their Approach

Browserbase is a serverless headless browser infrastructure service that runs Chrome instances in the cloud. If you're building web automation or AI agents, Browserbase handles the browser infrastructure so you don't need to manage servers or browser instances yourself. The service works with standard automation frameworks like Playwright, Puppeteer, and Selenium. You write your automation code using these tools, but instead of running browsers locally, your scripts connect to Browserbase's cloud infrastructure through APIs and SDKs. Browserbase includes built-in features for automation challenges. Session recording lets you debug workflows after they run. Stealth mode helps avoid detection by websites. The service provides CAPTCHA handling, proxy management with geographic routing, and infrastructure designed to look like real user traffic.

The team behind Browserbase also created Stagehand, an open-source framework for building AI agents that control browsers. Their infrastructure is optimized for LLM-driven automation where AI models make decisions about browser interactions.

What UiPath Does and Their Approach

UiPath provides enterprise Robotic Process Automation (RPA) software that uses bots to automate repetitive, rule-based tasks. The company has been consistently ranked number one by Gartner, Everest Group, and IDC for six consecutive years. The software works by mimicking human interactions with desktop applications and web interfaces. UiPath's bots interact with applications like a human would, clicking buttons, filling forms, and extracting data from systems that are difficult to integrate directly.

UiPath's architecture includes Studio for building automation workflows through visual design, Orchestrator for managing deployed bots, and Robot components that execute automated tasks. For browser-based applications, UiPath offers background automation using browser extensions, headless browser automation, and Picture in Picture features that allow application windows to be hidden during execution.

The target market is enterprise organizations across finance, healthcare, and other industries that need to automate structured, repetitive processes involving legacy desktop applications and form-based workflows.

Comparing Browserbase and UiPath

Let's look at these solutions side-by-side to see how they compare against key features.

With a basic understanding of how the two solutions differ, let's dig into the details and look at how differently they approach browser automation.

Technical Approach to Browser Interaction

So how do Browserbase and UiPath stack up in terms of their technical approach?

Browserbase runs cloud-hosted Chrome instances that you control through Chrome DevTools Protocol (CDP). Their Stagehand SDK sits on top of this infrastructure with three core methods that accept natural language prompts: act() executes individual web actions like clicking or typing, extract() pulls structured data based on Zod or JSON schemas, and observe() inspects the DOM to preview possible actions without executing them. Your automation code still uses frameworks like Playwright or Puppeteer, but the browser runtime lives in Browserbase's infrastructure instead of your local machine. The natural language interface makes it easier to write automation code compared to raw CDP, but the underlying approach still depends on element selectors that break when websites change their structure.

UiPath takes a different approach by using bots which interact with web applications through XPath selectors and UI descriptors. The software requires browser extensions installed on target machines to detect and manipulate web elements. During workflow creation, the bot records element attributes, then uses those attributes to find and interact with elements during execution. This works well for structured, rule-based tasks in enterprise environments with controlled application versions, but maintaining these selectors becomes a huge ongoing cost as target applications evolve. The bottom line is that both technical approaches excel at their intended use cases but create maintenance overhead when websites update their layouts or element attributes.

Maintenance Requirements and Website Changes

Website changes create one of the largest hidden costs in browser automation. When a target site updates its layout, button positions, or element attributes, automation scripts often break. How do the two solutions tackle this?

UiPath bots rely on pre-programmed selectors and UI descriptors captured during workflow design. When websites update, these selectors no longer match the new page structure. Teams must manually update workflows, retest automations, and redeploy bots. Case studies show that SaaS applications cause unreliable test results due to unexpected behavior and frequent layout changes. This makes UiPath best suited for environments where target applications remain relatively stable or where IT teams can coordinate updates with automation maintenance schedules.

Browserbase handles browser infrastructure but doesn't solve the selector maintenance problem. If you're using Playwright or Puppeteer through their service, you still need to update your scripts when websites change element IDs or class names. The maintenance cycle requires dedicated developer time. Every website update triggers a review cycle to identify broken workflows, update selectors, test changes, and redeploy. For organizations automating dozens or hundreds of websites, this creates substantial ongoing engineering overhead that scales with the number of automated workflows. The service excels at providing reliable browser infrastructure and stealth capabilities, but the fundamental limitation remains that your automation code still breaks when websites redesign their interfaces.

Handling Unstructured Data and Complex Scenarios

This is where the real differences between Browserbase and UiPath show up.

RPA tools like UiPath excel at structured, rule-based workflows but struggle when processes require interpretation or decision-making. The software works best with consistent document templates and predictable data formats. Tasks involving unstructured documents create problems for traditional RPA. Contracts, invoices, and forms that vary in layout or structure break rule-based extraction logic. UiPath bots need predefined templates to parse documents reliably. When input formats change, the automation fails without human intervention. Scenarios requiring real-time judgment fall outside RPA's capabilities. Customer support interactions, procurement decisions based on changing requirements, or workflows needing contextual reasoning require flexibility that rule-based bots can't provide. The limitation here is clear: UiPath shines in enterprise environments with standardized processes and document formats, but falls short when dealing with variable inputs or situations requiring contextual understanding.

Browserbase offers infrastructure that can run AI agents capable of handling variable scenarios. The service supports frameworks that use LLMs for decision-making, making it well-suited for teams building custom AI-powered automations that need to adapt to changing scenarios. However, Browserbase doesn't include the AI reasoning layer itself. You need to integrate separate models and frameworks to handle unstructured data or complex decision trees. Browserbase works best for development teams comfortable building and maintaining their own AI integration layer on top of reliable browser infrastructure.

Integration and Deployment Complexity

At the end of the day, if it's hard to use and deploy, it may not be worth it. That's why looking at integration and deployment complexity is just as important as features and technology. The deployment models reflect different trade-offs. Cloud services offer faster setup with ongoing usage costs. On-premise solutions require upfront configuration investment but predictable licensing fees.

• UiPath requires installing desktop software (UiPath Studio), browser extensions for each target browser, and robot instances on machines that will execute automations. Orchestrator components need configuration for managing multiple bots and scheduling workflows. The monthly cost starts at $250 per user for basic process discovery and small automation projects.
• On the other hand, Browserbase operates as a cloud service accessed through APIs. Teams integrate by pointing Playwright, Puppeteer, or Selenium code to Browserbase endpoints instead of local browser instances. Pricing follows a session-based model where one browser instance running for five minutes equals one session unit. You pay $0.50 per session. This works well for short automations but costs accumulate quickly with long-running sessions.

Skyvern Offers a Better Approach

We built Skyvern to solve the brittleness problem. Our LLM and computer vision approach works on websites we've never seen before and keeps working when those sites change their layouts. No selector maintenance. No breaking workflows every time a website updates a CSS class.

The API is simpler than UiPath's enterprise RPA stack but smarter than basic browser infrastructure. You send natural language instructions instead of writing Playwright scripts or configuring RPA bots. One workflow works across multiple websites instead of building custom code for each target site.

Skyvern handles 2FA, CAPTCHA, file downloads, and form filling across varying layouts without manual configuration.

Final Thoughts on RPA and Browser Automation Options

Browserbase and UiPath solve different parts of the automation puzzle, but both leave you maintaining selectors when websites change. Automation platforms that rely on pre-programmed workflows break with every layout update, creating engineering overhead that grows with each site you automate. Skyvern uses computer vision and LLMs to work across sites we've never seen, so your workflows survive redesigns without manual updates. Schedule a quick demo to test it on your actual use cases.

FAQ

What's the main difference between Browserbase and UiPath?

Browserbase provides serverless browser infrastructure for running Chrome instances in the cloud, while UiPath offers enterprise RPA software with bots that automate desktop and web applications through visual workflows. Browserbase works with your Playwright or Puppeteer code, while UiPath uses visual design tools and pre-programmed selectors.

Which tool is better for automating tasks across multiple websites with different layouts?

Neither tool handles this well without a lot of maintenance. UiPath requires updating selectors when websites change, and Browserbase still needs script updates for each site's unique structure. Both approaches create ongoing engineering overhead when automating across many different websites.

Do these tools work with unstructured data and documents that vary in format?

UiPath struggles with unstructured data and needs predefined templates to parse varying document layouts reliably. Browserbase provides infrastructure that can run AI agents for handling variable scenarios, but you need to integrate separate LLM frameworks yourself to process unstructured content.

How do I maintain automations when target websites update their design?

Both platforms require manual maintenance when websites change. UiPath workflows need selector updates, retesting, and redeployment. Browserbase automations need script updates if you're using standard frameworks like Playwright or Puppeteer, creating ongoing developer time requirements for each website update.