browser-use vs OpenCLI
browser-use is much bigger: 112.3k stars against 29.0k. Over the days we have tracked them browser-use moved +6.9% and OpenCLI +21.6%, so OpenCLI is growing faster right now.
They split the axes: browser-use leads on model freedom, OpenCLI on context depth.
Stars and commit dates come from our own daily tracking. The six axes are read off each project's documentation by our review pipeline, so they describe what a project says about itself, not what we measured in its code.
Where they stand today
An open-source browser agent that runs locally and is extensible with custom tools and provider‑prefixed models, enabling reproducible, privacy-friendly web automation.
- Stars
- 112.3k
- Tracked growth
- +6.9%
- Maturity
- ●●●●●
- Last commit
- 4h ago
- Language
- Python
- License
- MIT
- Cost to run
- Your LLM API key (or run free local models).
Converts any website into a deterministic CLI and lets AI agents drive your logged-in Chrome via a local Browser Bridge and reusable adapter skills.
- Stars
- 29.0k
- Tracked growth
- +21.6%
- Maturity
- ●●●●●
- Last commit
- 5d ago
- Language
- JavaScript
- License
- Apache-2.0
- Cost to run
- Free, local runtime
Six axes, head to head
Each axis runs 0 to 5. The label under a score is what that project's own docs claim, not a category average.
| Axis | browser-use | OpenCLI |
|---|---|---|
Context depth How much of your codebase it sees before it answers: the open diff, the diff plus related files, or the whole repository. | ●●●●● Diff only | ●●●●● Site & related files |
Noise control How it keeps output volume down — severity thresholds, deduplication, incremental runs over new commits only. | ●●●●● None mentioned | ●●●●● Basic diagnostics |
Customization How far it bends to your team: custom rules, prompts, style guides, per-path config. | ●●●●● Custom tools & prompts | ●●●●● Plugins & adapters |
Privacy Whether your code stays on your own infrastructure: fully local, self-hostable, or cloud API only. | ●●●●● Fully local capable | ●●●●● Runs locally |
Model freedom Whether you can point it at any provider, or it is wired to one. | ●●●●● Bring-your-own / local | ●●●●● Multiple providers |
Setup ease What it takes to get a first useful run out of it. | ●●●●● API key + install | ●●●●● Install + extension |
Which one to pick
Pick browser-use if…
Open-source & flexible — pick any LLM (including local models), add custom tools, and run browser automation on your machine.
- Model freedom: Bring-your-own / local (5/5 against 3/5)
Pick OpenCLI if…
Local browser control — use your logged-in Chrome and a lightweight local daemon/extension so agents operate real pages and you can author reusable adapters and plugins.
- Context depth: Site & related files (3/5 against 1/5)
What people want from each one
browser-use/browser-use
Hacker News: Launch HN: Browser Use (YC W25) – open-source web agents drew 259 points and 100 comments.
jackwener/OpenCLI
Hacker News: OpenCLI – Turn any website into a CLI, reusing your Chrome login drew 6 points and 3 comments.
Questions people ask
Is browser-use better than OpenCLI?
They split the axes: browser-use leads on model freedom, OpenCLI on context depth. browser-use is worth picking when open-source & flexible — pick any LLM (including local models), add custom tools, and run browser automation on your machine.
Which of browser-use and OpenCLI keeps my code private?
browser-use: Fully local capable (5/5). OpenCLI: Runs locally (5/5).
What does each one cost to run?
browser-use: Your LLM API key (or run free local models).. OpenCLI: Free, local runtime.
Full profiles: browser-use/browser-use and jackwener/OpenCLI. Everything else in Browser agents.