head to head · open source
javascript-obfuscator vs nanobrowser
javascript-obfuscator has 16,318 GitHub stars, 1,746 forks, 24 open issues and last shipped yesterday. nanobrowser has 14,222 stars, 1,521 forks, 81 open issues and last shipped 10 days ago. javascript-obfuscator leads on adoption by 15% (16,318 vs 14,222 stars). javascript-obfuscator is written in TypeScript under BSD-2-Clause; nanobrowser is written in TypeScript under Apache-2.0. javascript-obfuscator has attracted 11% as many forks as stars, nanobrowser 11%. javascript-obfuscator was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee. The two share 1 topic tag (browser), 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
| javascript-obfuscator | nanobrowser | |
|---|---|---|
| GitHub stars | ★ 16K | ★ 14K |
| License | BSD-2-Clause | Apache-2.0 |
| Written in | TypeScript | TypeScript |
| Last push | 2026-11-02 | 2026-10-24 |
| Forks | ⑂ 1.7K | ⑂ 1.5K |
| Self-hosting | Yes | Yes |
| Data ownership | Your server | Your server |
pick javascript-obfuscator if
- You weight community size — 16K stars and counting
- You want the BSD-2-Clause license terms
- Your stack matches TypeScript
- You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance
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
About javascript-obfuscator
JavaScript obfuscator :rocket: Obfuscator.io with VM Obfuscation Obfuscator.io adds VM based bytecode obfuscation to this package your JavaScript functions are compiled to custom bytecode that runs on an embedded virtual machine. Each build produces unique opcodes and VM structure, making reverse engineering and automated deobfuscation dramatically harder. Visit Obfuscator.io · Pro API methods This package provides access to Obfuscator.io API via CLI and Node.js API. Do you use JavaScript Obfuscator at your company? JavaScript Obfuscator has reached over 1 million npm downloads per week . I am currently…
read the full javascript-obfuscator overview →
About nanobrowser
🌐 Nanobrowser Nanobrowser is an open source AI web automation tool that runs in your browser. A free alternative to OpenAI Operator with flexible LLM options and multi agent system. ⬇️ Get Nanobrowser from Chrome Web Store for free 👏 Join the community in Discord X 🌟 Loving Nanobrowser? Give us a star and help spread the word! ❤️ Support the project by sponsoring us every contribution helps keep Nanobrowser free and open source! Nanobrowser's multi agent system analyzing HuggingFace in real time, with the Planner intelligently self correcting when encountering obstacles and dynamically instructing the…
read the full nanobrowser overview →
More in Productivity & Utilities
Related comparisons
More Browsers & Extensions projects
Compare either of these against the rest of the Browsers & Extensions field.
Frequently asked questions
Is javascript-obfuscator or nanobrowser more popular?
javascript-obfuscator has 16,318 GitHub stars and nanobrowser has 14,222. javascript-obfuscator has the larger community by that measure.
Are javascript-obfuscator and nanobrowser free?
Both are open source. javascript-obfuscator is licensed under BSD-2-Clause and nanobrowser under Apache-2.0. Neither carries a licence fee.
What is the difference between javascript-obfuscator and nanobrowser?
javascript-obfuscator is written in TypeScript 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, javascript-obfuscator or nanobrowser?
Choose javascript-obfuscator if you want the larger community (16,318 stars) or its BSD-2-Clause licence terms. Choose nanobrowser if its feature set, stack or Apache-2.0 licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.