head to head · open source
CloakBrowser vs BrowserKitten
CloakBrowser has 32,760 GitHub stars, 2,724 forks, 164 open issues and last shipped 4 days ago. BrowserKitten has 2,381 stars, 10 forks, 2 open issues and last shipped 2 days ago. CloakBrowser leads on adoption by 1,276% (32,760 vs 2,381 stars). CloakBrowser is written in Python under MIT; BrowserKitten is written in JavaScript under MIT. CloakBrowser has attracted 8% as many forks as stars, BrowserKitten 0%. BrowserKitten was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee. The two share 1 topic tag (browser-automation), so they are genuine substitutes rather than adjacent tools.
Two open source projects, one decision. Both are free and self-hostable — the differences are community size, license terms, language stack and release pace.
← all 20902 open source comparisons
Side by side
| CloakBrowser | BrowserKitten | |
|---|---|---|
| GitHub stars | ★ 33K | ★ 2.4K |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Written in | Python | JavaScript |
| Last push | 2026-11-03 | 2026-11-05 |
| Forks | ⑂ 2.7K | ⑂ 10 |
| Self-hosting | Yes | Yes |
| Data ownership | Your server | Your server |
pick CloakBrowser if
- You weight community size — 33K stars and counting
- You want the MIT license terms
- Your stack matches Python
- You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance
pick BrowserKitten if
- You want the BrowserKitten feature set and don't need the biggest community
- You prefer the MIT license terms
- Your stack matches JavaScript
- You evaluated both and BrowserKitten fits your workflow better
About CloakBrowser
Stealth Chromium that passes every bot detection test. Not a patched config. Not a JS injection. A real Chromium binary with fingerprints modified at the C++ source level. Antibot systems score it as a normal browser — because it is a normal browser. Cloudflare Turnstile — 3 live tests passing (headed mode, macOS) Drop in Playwright/Puppeteer replacement for Python and JavaScript. Same API, same code — just swap the import. 3 lines of code, 30 seconds to unblock. 87 source level C++ patches — canvas, WebGL, audio, fonts, GPU, screen, WebRTC, network timing, automation signals, CDP input behavior humanize=True —…
read the full CloakBrowser overview →
About BrowserKitten
Browser Kitten An agent for the browser you already use. Read signed in pages, take action, create files, and follow up locally. English · 简体中文 Quick start · Configuration · Documentation · Current limits · Contribute · Issues Browser Kitten is an MIT licensed Chrome MV3 extension with an agent in the side panel. It works with your existing browser session and keeps conversations, workspace files, and follow up tasks on this computer. Model and other provider requests use the services you configure. Current source version: 1.2.0 · Load unpacked · No build step for installation. What you can do See the actual…
read the full BrowserKitten overview →
More in Data & Analytics
Related comparisons
More Data Extraction & Web Scraping projects
Compare either of these against the rest of the Data Extraction & Web Scraping field.
Frequently asked questions
Is CloakBrowser or BrowserKitten more popular?
CloakBrowser has 32,760 GitHub stars and BrowserKitten has 2,381. CloakBrowser has the larger community by that measure.
Are CloakBrowser and BrowserKitten free?
Both are open source. CloakBrowser is licensed under MIT and BrowserKitten under MIT. Neither carries a licence fee.
What is the difference between CloakBrowser and BrowserKitten?
CloakBrowser is written in Python and BrowserKitten in JavaScript. The practical differences are community size, licence terms, language stack and release cadence — all compared in the table above.
Which should I choose, CloakBrowser or BrowserKitten?
Choose CloakBrowser if you want the larger community (32,760 stars) or its MIT licence terms. Choose BrowserKitten if its feature set, stack or MIT licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.