Learn how Skyvern 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
Self-hosted
Repository

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

Both Skyvern and Steel have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Skyvern leads in popularity with 23,091 stars vs 7,708 stars for Steel. The 200% higher star count indicates stronger community adoption. In terms of developer contributions, Skyvern has 2,180 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Steel is growing faster, adding 143 stars in the last 30 days (+1.9%) against adding 207 stars for Skyvern (+0.9%). Steel is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Skyvern last updated 3 hours ago and Steel 14 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Bash, Typescript, JSX. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Skyvern uses Python.
Both projects started around the same time, with Skyvern beginning 3 years ago and Steel 2 years ago.
The projects use different licenses: Skyvern is licensed under AGPL-3.0 while Steel uses Apache-2.0. Consider the licensing requirements when choosing for your project.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Browser Automation for AI.
Both Skyvern and Steel offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.