Which anti-detect browsers ship an ARM64 Linux build

If your infrastructure already runs on ARM instances, the anti-detect browser tends to be the one component that drags an x86 machine back into the plan. On 2026-08-13 I went through each vendor's own download endpoints, not their marketing pages, to see who publishes an ARM64 Linux artifact. Almost nobody does.

What was checked

For each product: the first-party download page and the file it actually serves, on 2026-08-13. Where the page hides the artifact behind a click, the filename or the binary itself is the evidence, because at least one vendor's blog claims ARM support that their own CDN does not back up.

Product	Linux artifact published	ARM64 Linux
AdsPower	AdsPower-Global-<version>-x64.deb, under a linux-x64-global path	No
GoLogin	AppImage; the download page exposes only .exe and two .dmg	No
Dolphin Anty	-linux-amd64-latest.deb, -linux-x86_64-latest.AppImage, -linux-x86_64-latest.rpm	No
Multilogin	multilogin-<version>-linux_x86_64.zip	No
Octo Browser	a single OctoBrowser.linux.tar.gz containing an AppImage	No
Kameleo	Docker; the documented run command passes --platform linux/amd64	No
Undetectable	none published; Windows and macOS only	No

Two of those rows needed more than a filename. Octo's tarball has no architecture in its name, so the name proves nothing: the AppImage inside it carries ELF machine type 0x3e, which is x86-64. And Dolphin's blog states ARM support including Raspberry Pi, while the three files their CDN serves are amd64 and x86_64. Filenames beat copy.

Worth noting what the same vendors do ship: AdsPower, GoLogin and Undetectable all publish an Apple silicon build. They are not avoiding ARM. They are avoiding ARM Linux.

Why the gap exists

These are desktop applications sold to people who click. That user is on Windows or a Mac. ARM64 Linux desktops are rare enough that building, signing and supporting a second Linux artifact for them is a bad trade, and skipping it is the correct product decision.

The gap only matters once the browser stops being an app someone opens and becomes a dependency inside a deployment. On a server, ARM is ordinary rather than exotic, and the cost of the missing build is not the browser itself: it is the separate x86 node you now keep running, or the emulation layer you run an amd64 image under, which is slow and changes timing in ways you did not ask for.

What an arm64 build does not buy you

It does not make anything harder to detect. A profile presents the identity it was generated with, and the host CPU is not something a page can read. Architecture only shows up in the fingerprint if you emulate a device that has one, which is a separate decision. Anyone selling arm64 as a stealth feature is selling you a deployment convenience with the wrong label on it.

What it does buy is narrower and real: one architecture across the fleet, no x86 island kept alive for the browsers, and no qemu layer between your automation and the thing it is timing.

The gotcha, whichever vendor you use

Kernel binaries are cached by version, not by CPU, in ~/.anti-detect-browser/kernels/<version>/. Mount one cache volume from both an amd64 host and an arm64 host and whichever downloads second gets a binary it cannot execute. Give each architecture its own volume. This is the failure people spend an afternoon on, and the error message is not helpful.

Where this is the wrong reason to pick us

If your servers are x86, this whole post is worth nothing to you, and none of the products above are penalized by it.

If you want a desktop GUI on an ARM Linux laptop, we do not solve that either: our own Linux desktop build is x64, exactly like everyone else's in the table. ARM64 support lives in the SDK, which is the layer that actually gets deployed on servers.

And architecture is not the interesting part of running a browser on a server. No GPU, almost no fonts, no audio device and a datacenter IP will each cost you far more than a CPU family. On Linux you also still run the headed build under Xvfb rather than a dedicated headless mode, because real headless Chromium has a fingerprint of its own. If what you are actually weighing is a patched Playwright setup you already run, the architecture is the smallest of the differences: that comparison is the one worth reading first. And if the browser is driven by an agent rather than a script, how it is driven matters more than which CPU it lands on.

Check it yourself

Do not take the table on trust, and do not take a vendor's compatibility page on trust either. Download their Linux artifact and read the header:

file ./TheApp.AppImage
readelf -h ./TheApp.AppImage | grep Machine

Advanced Micro Devices X86-64 means x86-64 no matter what the page said. AArch64 means an arm64 build exists. For ours, run a launch on an arm64 Linux host and look at what landed in the kernel cache directory; the SDK docs cover the install path.