head to head · open source
CloakBrowser vs workflow-use
CloakBrowser has 32,769 GitHub stars, 2,724 forks, 163 open issues and last shipped yesterday. workflow-use has 4,247 stars, 356 forks, 61 open issues and last shipped 2 days ago. CloakBrowser leads on adoption by 672% (32,769 vs 4,247 stars). CloakBrowser is written in Python under MIT; workflow-use is written in Python under AGPL-3.0. CloakBrowser has attracted 8% as many forks as stars, workflow-use 8%. CloakBrowser 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 | workflow-use | |
|---|---|---|
| GitHub stars | ★ 33K | ★ 4.2K |
| License | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Written in | Python | Python |
| Last push | 2026-11-07 | 2026-11-06 |
| Forks | ⑂ 2.7K | ⑂ 356 |
| 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 workflow-use if
- You want the workflow-use feature set and don't need the biggest community
- You prefer the AGPL-3.0 license terms
- Your stack matches Python
- You evaluated both and workflow-use 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 workflow-use
Deterministic, Self Healing Workflows (RPA 2.0) ⚙️ Workflow Use is the easiest way to create and execute deterministic workflows with variables which fallback to Browser Use if a step fails. You just show the recorder the workflow, we automatically generate the workflow. ❗ This project is in very early development so we don't recommend using this in production. Lots of things will change and we don't have a release schedule yet. Originally, the project was born out of customer demand to make Browser Use more reliable and deterministic. 🚀 NEW: Generation Mode Automatically generate workflows from natural…
read the full workflow-use 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 workflow-use more popular?
CloakBrowser has 32,769 GitHub stars and workflow-use has 4,247. CloakBrowser has the larger community by that measure.
Are CloakBrowser and workflow-use free?
Both are open source. CloakBrowser is licensed under MIT and workflow-use under AGPL-3.0. Neither carries a licence fee.
What is the difference between CloakBrowser and workflow-use?
CloakBrowser is written in Python and workflow-use in Python. 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 workflow-use?
Choose CloakBrowser if you want the larger community (32,769 stars) or its MIT licence terms. Choose workflow-use if its feature set, stack or AGPL-3.0 licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.