Learn how Browser Use and Steel differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these browser automation for ai tools is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Repository

Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

Browser Use appears to have several advantages over Steel, particularly in popularity, growth and licensing. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Browser Use significantly outpaces Steel in community adoption with 116,666 stars compared to 7,708 stars on GitHub. This 15.1x difference suggests Browser Use has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Browser Use has 12,861 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Browser Use is growing faster, adding 4,930 stars in the last 30 days (+4.4%) against adding 143 stars for Steel (+1.9%). Browser Use is both larger and pulling further ahead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Browser Use last updated 3 days ago and Steel 14 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, Bash. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Browser Use uses Python while Steel leverages CSS, Typescript, JSX.
Both projects started around the same time, with Browser Use beginning 2 years ago and Steel 2 years ago.
Browser Use uses the MIT license, which is more permissive than Steel's Apache-2.0 license, potentially offering greater flexibility for commercial use and integration.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Browser Automation for AI.
Steel provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while Browser Use may be primarily cloud-based or require different deployment approaches.