Comparison

An ixBrowser alternative, from the product that will not claim to be cheaper

ixBrowser gives unlimited profiles on its free tier and starts at $3.99/mo. We are not cheaper and this page says so. What differs is where the data lives, whether the identity survives, and whether an agent can drive it.

Start with the part that is bad for us.

From ixbrowser.com/en, captured 2026-08-01:

Plan Price Profiles Daily create / open caps
Free $0 Unlimited 10 created, 100 opens
Professional $3.99/mo Unlimited 100 created, 1,000 opens
Business $9.99/mo Unlimited 500 created, 5,000 opens
Enterprise $19.99/mo Unlimited 1,500 created, 15,000 opens
Basic Developer $9.99/year Unlimited 10 created, 100 opens

Unlimited profiles and unlimited sub-accounts on the free tier. Paid entry at $3.99/mo, and a developer tier at $9.99 per year.

AntiBrow's paid plans start at $9.9/mo. We are not the cheap option here, and we are not going to construct a comparison table that makes it look otherwise. If price per month is your deciding variable, the honest answer is that ixBrowser wins it and you should go use it.

We used to say "lowest price in the category" on our own homepage. It was not true, a single link disproved it, and we took it down. Putting it back inside a comparison page would be the same lie wearing a different hat.

What actually differs

Where the data lives. An AntiBrow profile is a directory on your own disk: cookies, localStorage, IndexedDB and passkeys are your files. Cloud sync exists but is opt-in per profile, so a profile you have not synced is one we cannot read. That is a property of where it was written, not a promise. Whether it matters depends on whether anyone has ever asked you where your clients' session cookies are stored.

Passkeys per identity. Each profile carries its own virtual authenticator. A passkey enrolled on a site is captured and replayed at the next sign-in, so a passwordless account stays reachable from that identity across restarts. Platforms are making passkeys the default rather than an option, and an identity that cannot hold one gradually loses the ability to log in.

Whether an agent can drive it. AntiBrow returns standard Playwright Browser and Page objects, and runs as an MCP server from one line of config. If your work is moving from a human clicking to a script or an AI agent doing it, that is the axis to compare on, and it is a different axis from price.

No daily caps. ixBrowser's tiers meter profile creations and launches per day. AntiBrow meters concurrency: how many browsers run at the same time. Neither is better in the abstract; they are just different shapes, and yours will fit one of them worse.

Where ixBrowser is the better answer

  • Budget is the constraint. $3.99/mo against $9.9/mo is not close, and unlimited profiles on the free tier is a genuinely strong offer.
  • You click, you do not script. If nothing in your workflow is automated, our Playwright and MCP surface is worth nothing to you, and you are paying for it.
  • The daily caps fit you. 100 opens a day free is a lot for most people.

Where we would not claim an advantage

Neither product controls your proxy quality, your behaviour, or the history of the accounts you bring. Those decide most detection outcomes. Both will get you flagged under bad conditions.

Check it yourself, and do it before paying anyone

Run one profile in each, over the same proxy, through whoer.net and CreepJS, and then through the anti-bot wall your actual work has to clear. That last test is the only one that decides anything.

AntiBrow's free tier is unlimited local profiles with no card, which means you can run that test against us for nothing and conclude we are not worth $9.9. We would rather you find that out in an afternoon than after a refund request.

Download the desktop app or see what the data boundary actually is.

Check the claim yourself.

Unlimited local profiles on the free tier, no card. Run the detectors before you trust any of this.