Browser-Use vs invisible_playwright_mcp

Side-by-side comparison of two AI agent tools

Short answer

  • Browser-Use is growing faster: +5,123 GitHub stars in the last 30 days vs +330 for invisible_playwright_mcp.
  • Pick Browser-Use for: make websites accessible for AI agents. Pick invisible_playwright_mcp for: mCP server for AI browser automation with Playwright on anti-detect Firefox and a standalone web UI.

From GitHub data refreshed daily.

Browser-Useopen-source

🌐 Make websites accessible for AI agents. Automate tasks online with ease.

i

MCP server for AI browser automation with Playwright on anti-detect Firefox and a standalone web UI

Metrics

Browser-Useinvisible_playwright_mcp
Stars117.0k31.7k
Star velocity /mo5.1k330
Commits (90d)526296
Releases (6m)1010
Overall score0.88725225083366020.7750235305428677

Pros

  • +高度流行且活跃的开源项目，拥有84,000+GitHub星标和活跃社区支持
  • +提供云端服务选项，支持快速、可扩展且具备隐蔽功能的浏览器自动化
  • +与主流AI编程助手无缝集成，如Cursor和Claude Code等工具

    Cons

    • -依赖Chromium浏览器，需要额外的系统资源和安装步骤
    • -要求Python 3.11及以上版本，对环境有一定技术要求
    • -作为相对新兴的工具，可能在某些复杂网站交互场景中存在兼容性限制

      Use Cases

      • •AI代理自动化网页数据采集和信息提取任务
      • •自动化Web应用程序测试和质量保证流程
      • •构建智能客服机器人进行网站表单填写和在线服务交互
        View Browser-Use DetailsView invisible_playwright_mcp Details

        FAQ

        Which is more popular, Browser-Use or invisible_playwright_mcp?
        Browser-Use has more GitHub stars (116,992 vs 31,749).
        Which is more actively developed, Browser-Use or invisible_playwright_mcp?
        Browser-Use had more commits in the last 90 days (526 vs 296).
        Should I use Browser-Use or invisible_playwright_mcp?
        Compare their capabilities, limitations and "best for" notes above. Both are open source, so trying each on a small task is the fastest way to decide.