Browser UseFreemium
Give an agent a natural-language task and it drives a real browser to completion — open source library, or managed cloud browsers.
AI Infrastructure comparison
Browser Use vs E2B
Pricing, pros, cons, and ideal use cases — side by side.
E2BFreemium
Isolated sandboxes where an AI agent can run the code it just wrote without touching anything you care about.
At a glance
| Browser Use | E2B | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | FreemiumThe Python library is open source and free to self-host. Cloud Browser Infrastructure is $0.02 per browser-hour, metered by the minute. Cloud Agents bill browser time from $0.02/hour plus model tokens at published per-million rates (their default model lists at $0.24 per million input tokens and $1.44 per million output). Usage-based throughout — no seat fee. | FreemiumHobby is free with $100 one-time usage credits, community support, sessions up to 1 hour, and 20 concurrent sandboxes; no credit card required. Pro is $150/month with customisable sandbox CPU and RAM, sessions up to 24 hours, and 100 concurrent sandboxes, expandable by purchase to 1,100. Enterprise is custom. Compute is billed per second on vCPU, RAM, and storage on top of the plan fee. |
| Category | AI Infrastructure | AI Infrastructure |
| Ideal for | Teams automating vendor and supplier portals that have no APIResearch and lead-enrichment pipelines that need real page interactionQA and internal-tooling engineers replacing brittle Selenium scriptsOperators automating legacy systems with no integration path | Teams shipping code-interpreter or data-analysis agent featuresAI product companies that must isolate customer-triggered code executionPlatform engineers building internal agent runtimesAnyone letting an LLM run generated code against real data |
Pros & cons
Browser Use
Pros
- Open source core — evaluate locally before spending anything
- Genuinely cheap per browser-hour, metered by the minute
- Handles sites and portals with no API at all
- Human-approval checkpoints for sensitive steps
- Use it as a finished-task agent or as raw browser infrastructure
Cons
- Browser agents break when target sites change layout — expect maintenance
- Token cost, not browser time, is usually the larger bill
- Automating third-party sites carries terms-of-service exposure you own
- Not a fit for unsupervised, money-moving workflows
- Requires engineering capacity — this is a developer tool
E2B
Pros
- Real isolation for agent-executed code — the correct security posture
- Sub-second sandbox start times
- Free tier with $100 credits is enough for a genuine evaluation
- Concurrency limits are published and purchasable
- Per-second billing means short runs are genuinely cheap
Cons
- The $150 Pro step is steep relative to the free tier
- Compute is billed on top of the plan fee — the plan price is not your bill
- Long-lived idle sandboxes are the standard way teams overspend
- Developer infrastructure — no value without engineering
- You still own the prompt-injection risk; isolation limits blast radius, it does not prevent bad instructions
Which should you choose?
Browser Use is built around teams automating vendor and supplier portals that have no api; E2B leans more toward teams shipping code-interpreter or data-analysis agent features. Shortlist the one whose strengths line up with your biggest constraint.
Still deciding between Browser Use and E2B?
Get one AI workflow a week showing AI Infrastructure in a real stack — what they cost, and where each one breaks.