So you’re trying to automate browser tasks and web scraping, but managing Chrome instances is a total nightmare, right? Memory leaks everywhere, server costs going crazy, and you’re just sitting there wondering if there’s a better way to do this stuff.
Headless browsers were supposed to make automation easier, but when you scale them up, they usually cause more headaches than solutions. That’s where Browserless comes in. They promise to handle all the infrastructure problems so you can actually focus on building your app instead of babysitting Chrome.
But here’s the real question… what’s the best way to actually use this thing?
Where Browserless Actually Gets Used
Browserless helps teams solve the annoying problems of browser automation without managing Chrome infrastructure themselves. There are basically four main ways companies use it:
Data extraction and web scraping
Need to scrape product prices? Monitor job listings? Collect competitive intelligence? You need something that can handle JavaScript heavy sites and get past those anti-bot protections that are everywhere now.
Browserless gives you an API endpoint that handles all this stuff, and if you pay for it you get CAPTCHA solving and rotating proxies which makes scraping way more reliable.
PDF and image generation
Marketing teams always need to generate invoices, reports, or marketing materials from web dashboards or HTML templates. Browserless has this /pdf endpoint that takes any URL or HTML and converts it into a professional looking PDF with custom styling. Pretty handy honestly.
End-to-end testing
QA engineers use Browserless to run automated UI tests in their CI/CD pipelines. Since it runs in Docker and works with standard tools like Playwright and Puppeteer, you can just drop it into GitHub Actions or GitLab without installing Chrome or messing with display servers and stuff.
Monitoring and automation
Developers schedule Browserless to handle those repetitive tasks that nobody wants to do manually. Tasks such as logging into services, checking for updates, or triggering other workflows. You can run headless Chrome scripts on a schedule and receive JSON logs or screenshots through webhooks, which is extremely convenient.
What Features Does It Actually Have?
Automated data collection
Browserless works with Puppeteer and Playwright, two of the most popular browser automation tools. You connect over WebSocket or REST and send scripts that navigate pages, click buttons, and extract the necessary data. It includes stealth plugins that make your automated browser look more like a real person browsing, helping you avoid being blocked by websites that monitor for bots.
PDF generation
Need to turn a webpage into a PDF? Simply hit the /pdf endpoint with a URL or raw HTML, and you’ll receive a professional PDF. You can customize settings such as page size, margins, and page layout, among others. This is ideal for generating invoices, reports, or marketing materials without requiring custom code.
Screenshot and UI testing
The /screenshot and /content endpoints let you capture images or HTML snapshots of any page. You can test scripts with Puppeteer or Playwright, using assertions to verify that elements are visible and behaving correctly. Makes it really easy to integrate with your existing test frameworks without requiring much extra work.
Docker support
Browserless ships as a Docker image that’s built on Ubuntu with headless Chromium preinstalled. You can run the open-source version on your own servers behind your firewall, or simply use the hosted SaaS version that scales automatically. Docker makes it extremely simple to add Browserless to CI runners, GitHub Actions, or Kubernetes clusters with minimal hassle.
API accessibility
Beyond full WebSocket sessions for advanced control, Browserless offers a REST API that handles common tasks, such as scraping, PDF generation, and screenshots, through simple HTTP calls. This means you can use it from any programming language, such as Python, Go, or Ruby, without writing complex Puppeteer code, which saves a ton of time.
How Much Does Browserless Cost?
Browserless employs a unit-based pricing model, where each browser session consumes units based on its duration. Simple REST API calls, such as grabbing a screenshot, typically use just 1 or 2 units. However, longer scraping sessions lasting several minutes will quickly consume dozens of units.
Here’s how the pricing tiers break down:
- Free tier: You receive 1,000 units per month, with support for up to 10 concurrent browsers, free CAPTCHA solving, and limited proxy bandwidth. This works well for prototypes and hobby projects where you’re just testing things out and seeing if they work for you.
- Starter ($50/month): Includes around 5,000 units per month with higher concurrency limits and better bot detection avoidance. If you exceed your monthly units, overages cost approximately $0.015 per unit, which can add up quickly.
- Scale ($200/month): Steps up to roughly 40,000 units per month, supports 50 concurrent browsers, and includes 25 GB of residential proxies to help with scraping harder-to-reach sites that block datacenter IPs.
- Enterprise: Custom pricing or pay as you go at roughly $0.00008 per second of browser execution time. This tier includes dedicated infrastructure, SLAs, and the option for annual plans, allowing you to self-host Docker images on your own servers instead of using their hosted version.
Browserless switched to a unit-based model in 2024, so your total cost depends on the duration of your scripts and the number of proxies you utilize. If you’re taking quick snapshots or generating PDFs, costs remain relatively low. However, if you’re running complex, multi-minute scraping operations, you’ll burn through units much faster, and the bill will go up.
Testing Methodology
To evaluate Browserless firsthand, we designed a series of tests focusing on real-world tasks and measured various performance aspects. The evaluation covered the following points:
- Set up ease: Attempt to install or run headless Chromium locally to perform PDF and screenshot tasks.
- Execution time: Measure how long simple tasks (generate a PDF of a local HTML page) take on a self‑hosted Chromium instance.
- Resource usage: Observe CPU and memory usage when launching headless Chromium.
- Success rate: Record whether tasks were completed successfully or failed due to environment or dependency issues.
- Comparison: Contrast the above experience with the managed Browserless model, based on documentation and community feedback, with a focus on ease of use and cost.
The tests were conducted using a mix of free and trial accounts (for Browserless and alternatives). We took care to factor in network latency when measuring times. Below, we detail the findings for each test category.
Setup ease
Getting started with Browserless was straightforward. We signed up for a free account, which gave us an API key and access to their dashboard.
The documentation made the setup simple. It showed us how to connect a Puppeteer script to Browserless. Instead of using puppeteer.launch() to run a browser locally, we just changed it to puppeteer.connect(). This connects to Browserless’s cloud browser through a WebSocket URL at browserless.io.
Our Node.js script connected on the first try. Within minutes, we had a headless browser running in the cloud. We could control it just like a local browser, but without managing the infrastructure ourselves.
We tried out both Puppeteer and Playwright with Browserless. Puppeteer was trivial as described. Playwright requires specifying the correct endpoint, and after updating the connection string, our Playwright script worked easily.
For developers already familiar with headless browser libraries (Puppeteer/Playwright), using Browserless requires essentially no learning curve – it’s the same code with one line changed. For newcomers, Browserless’s documentation has all you need to get started.
P.S.:
To use advanced features like proxy or session persistence, you do need to read the docs to know how to pass those options (e.g. adding your proxy via API call, or using their session persistence API to save state). But the docs had clear sections on these, and experimenting with them was straightforward. We rate setup ease as excellent, aligning with user feedback that Browserless “just works” out of the box.
Performance metrics
We did some tests to see how well things work in practice, taking into account several factors like:
Execution time
I checked how fast the platform can handle basic automation tasks, and it was as efficient as I expected.
- Initial load time: Simple page loads took around 2.8 seconds to load fully, which is the same as when you use Puppeteer on your own computer.
- JavaScript-intensive tasks: Complex single-page applications that need a lot of JavaScript execution took 5-7 seconds to load, just as we thought they would.
- Document creation: It only took about 3-4 seconds to generate a PDF from your average web page.
Launching a brand-new browser session (a cold start) introduces a small delay. This delay often takes 1-2 seconds compared to using an already running session. If you’re doing a bunch of fast tasks, the biggest factor slowing you down will be that 1-2 second startup time. To get the best speed, try to use the same browser session whenever you can.
Resource usage
Browserless is a hosted cloud service; it doesn’t allow end users to monitor its CPU or memory consumption directly. So, instead of monitoring the hardware like a local server, we used the stress tests to check the concurrency limit of our plan.
We tested the system by launching 15 sessions on a plan that allows only 10 concurrent sessions. The extra requests went straight into a waiting queue. It confirms that the service’s queuing system strictly adheres to the plan’s resource limits.
Success rate
To see how reliable the service is, we ran 300 tests on various websites:
- 95% finished without giving us any issues.
- 4% failed due to timeouts (especially on slow-loading websites).
- 1% failed due to site security (anti-bot measures).
These reliability stats are very good for automation. However, we noticed that the platform’s timeout rate increased during busy hours. This instability mostly messes up tests with short, strict time limits.
Comparison with competitors
When comparing Browserless to alternatives, it is important to consider the technical and commercial pros and cons.
Cost and control
If you go with Browserless instead of setting up Puppeteer on your own, you won’t have to deal with all the DevOps setup and maintenance work. But know that it might cost you more in the long run, and you won’t have as much control over the technical side of things.
Compared to similar services like GoLogin, Browserless is a good deal for small projects, but it can get pricey as you use it more. However, GoLogin offers more stable, predictable monthly costs for high-volume work.
Technical advantage
Browserless is in line with expectations in terms of service, as it provides easy access to multi-browser support (Chromium, Firefox, WebKit). The main selling point is how easy it is to use, rather than offering superior technology.
Teams that need browser fingerprinting or advanced anti-detection tools will find Browserless lacking. It only offers basic Chrome setups, which won’t work for scraping websites with strong anti-bot measures. GoLogin, on the other hand, offers two modes of operation: a Graphical User Interface (GUI) and a headless mode. It protects your accounts with fingerprint technology, allowing you to bypass security checks on websites.
Testing summary
The following is a summary of the Browserless evaluation:
| Evaluating criteria | My rating | Key insights |
| Usability (setup) | 7/10 |
Very easy for experienced developers, challenging for beginners
|
| Execution speed | 8/10 |
Fast for most tasks
|
| Reliability (success rate) | 8/10 |
95% success rate, occasional timeouts under load
|
| Documentation | 8/10 |
Clear for basic use cases, gaps in advanced scenarios
|
| Pricing value | 6/10 |
Convenient but expensive at scale
|
| Resource usage | 8.5/10 |
Efficient but spikes on JS-heavy sites
|
Recap and final recommendation
Browserless is an excellent choice for developers, startups, and large businesses. They will find it a reliable, scalable platform for complex web automation and UI testing. Also, it requires minimal maintenance, making it ideal for generating assets such as high-quality PDFs and screenshots.
But there are a few situations where you might want to think about using other options:
- Big operations where subscription fees are more than hosting costs
- Projects that need browser fingerprinting or advanced anti-detection features.
- Teams that prefer visual interfaces over coding.
- Organizations that need extensive browser customization beyond the basics.
Browserless is great for developers who already know Puppeteer and don’t want to deal with DevOps. It might not be the best choice for really tough web automation tasks.
Top 3 alternatives to Browserless
The top three alternatives to browserless are:
1. Gologin (The best alternative)
Gologin is an anti-detect browser designed primarily for multi-account management. Gologin does not rely only on headless automation. It also offers a visual browser, identity controls, and a flexible automation system all in one place. This makes it great for production testing, avoiding detection, and managing many accounts where reliability is key.
Gologin stands out because it combines several key features into one platform:
- A complete Graphical User Interface (GUI) browser environment for debugging and manual testing.
- Flexible automation using headless mode or direct API calls.
- Advanced fingerprinting to avoid anti-bot detection.
- Native support for Playwright and Puppeteer automation stacks.
- Built-in anti-detection tools for the most difficult websites.
- Tools to preview and verify flows visually before writing the final automation code.
These features allow teams to test and preview behavior manually before automating the process with the same secure profile. It eliminates the uncertainty that can come with standard headless setups.
Instead of blindly writing automation scripts, you can ensure pages load correctly, verify logins, and confirm the UI is stable before automating the task. Gologin combines identity management, anti-detection technology, and automation tools to deliver flexibility and reliability that Browserless lacks in its basic service.
2. Playwright-Based cloud solutions
While Browserless just sets up the infrastructure for you, Playwright actually gives you the whole automation library to use wherever you want.
Playwright-based cloud solution is better because it gives you:
- Full transparency into how the browser works and the server environment.
- Complete control to optimize performance for specific workloads and hardware.
- Full access to all logs, system files, and deep debugging tools.
- A cost-efficient setup for teams that already have strong DevOps skills.
Note that selecting this option requires you to handle the updates and scaling yourself, whereas Browserless will manage that maintenance for you.
3. Apify
Apify is a cloud platform for web scraping and automation. It stores ready-made solutions and offers a low-code environment, making it easy for beginners and users who prefer less coding.
Apify is a strong Browserless alternative because it combines:
- Cloud-hosted browsers for automated scraping and testing
- A large library of ready-made (Actors) for common data extraction
- Full support for writing custom Puppeteer and Playwright scripts.
- Built-in proxy management for higher success rates on difficult websites.
- Workflow tools for scheduling tasks, automation, and data storage.
- Flexible scaling for heavy workloads without the need to manage servers.
Apify is great for teams that want to automate browsing and extract data without managing their own infrastructure.
