head to head · open source

ego-lite vs nanobrowser

ego-lite has 16,117 GitHub stars, 844 forks, 169 open issues and last shipped yesterday. nanobrowser has 13,809 stars, 1,456 forks, 81 open issues and last shipped 1 months ago. ego-lite leads on adoption by 17% (16,117 vs 13,809 stars). ego-lite is written in JavaScript under MIT; nanobrowser is written in TypeScript under Apache-2.0. ego-lite has attracted 5% as many forks as stars, nanobrowser 11%. ego-lite was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee. The two share 3 topic tags (automation, browser, 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.

ego-lite ★ 16K nanobrowser ★ 14K category Productivity & Utilities

← all 8884 open source comparisons

Side by side

ego-lite nanobrowser
GitHub stars ★ 16K ★ 14K
License MIT Apache-2.0
Written in JavaScript TypeScript
Last push 2026-09-17 2026-08-18
Forks ⑂ 844 ⑂ 1.5K
Self-hosting Yes Yes
Data ownership Your server Your server

pick ego-lite if

  • You weight community size — 16K stars and counting
  • You want the MIT license terms
  • Your stack matches JavaScript
  • You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance

full ego-lite profile →

pick nanobrowser if

  • You want the nanobrowser feature set and don't need the biggest community
  • You prefer the Apache-2.0 license terms
  • Your stack matches TypeScript
  • You evaluated both and nanobrowser fits your workflow better

full nanobrowser profile →

About ego-lite

ego lite is an MIT licensed browser from citrolabs that lets a person and their AI agents drive the same browser in parallel, aimed at developers who want Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, or a custom agent CLI to automate real, logged in web pages without surrendering the tabs they are using.

read the full ego-lite overview →

About nanobrowser

Nanobrowser is an open source Chrome extension for AI powered web automation that runs multi agent workflows inside your own browser using your own LLM API key, built for people who want Operator style browser agents without a subscription.

read the full nanobrowser overview →

More in Productivity & Utilities

n8n ★ 205K Excalidraw ★ 132K RustDesk ★ 124K Browser Use ★ 115K LocalSend ★ 92K AppFlowy ★ 77K

Related comparisons

ublock vs ladybird ublock vs chrome-devtools-mcp ladybird vs chrome-devtools-mcp ublock vs monaco-editor ladybird vs monaco-editor ublock vs zen-browser ladybird vs zen-browser ublock vs servo n8n vs browser-use n8n vs frigate n8n vs lightpanda n8n vs proxmoxve n8n vs activepieces n8n vs skyvern n8n vs automa n8n vs livekit n8n vs obs-studio n8n vs sharex n8n vs kap excalidraw vs obs-studio n8n vs snapify excalidraw vs sharex excalidraw vs kap excalidraw vs snapify

More Browsers & Extensions projects

Compare either of these against the rest of the Browsers & Extensions field.

ego-lite vs uBlock ego-lite vs Ladybird ego-lite vs chrome-devtools-mcp ego-lite vs monaco-editor ego-lite vs Zen Browser ego-lite vs servo ego-lite vs serenity ego-lite vs refined-github ego-lite vs slate ego-lite vs Avalonia ego-lite vs webtorrent ego-lite vs fingerprintjs

Frequently asked questions

Is ego-lite or nanobrowser more popular?

ego-lite has 16,117 GitHub stars and nanobrowser has 13,809. ego-lite has the larger community by that measure.

Are ego-lite and nanobrowser free?

Both are open source. ego-lite is licensed under MIT and nanobrowser under Apache-2.0. Neither carries a licence fee.

What is the difference between ego-lite and nanobrowser?

ego-lite is written in JavaScript and nanobrowser in TypeScript. The practical differences are community size, licence terms, language stack and release cadence — all compared in the table above.

Which should I choose, ego-lite or nanobrowser?

Choose ego-lite if you want the larger community (16,117 stars) or its MIT licence terms. Choose nanobrowser if its feature set, stack or Apache-2.0 licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.