Skip to main content

topic / Checked 2026-10-18

Anchor Browser vs Cloudflare Browser Run: pricing

What will the same completed work cost? Compare Anchor Browser and Cloudflare Browser Run using documented pricing behavior and a practical evaluation method.

What will the same completed work cost?

Start with the work that has to finish: executions per month, browser time per execution, concurrent browsers and network traffic. Choose the cheapest eligible plan for that workload. An hourly rate can be lower while the bill is higher because a plan floor, billing minimum or extra service applies.

For 10,000 runs lasting three minutes, browser time is 500 hours before rounding, setup and retries. At Notte's published $0.01 browser-hour rate, that meter is $5. Paid-plan eligibility and any proxy or Function usage still determine the total bill.

Compare the billing contract

Anchor Browser: Compare the selected browser and task offering using Anchor's current commercial terms. Include network usage and the execution path actually used; a batch API's capacity is not a price quote for that batch.

Cloudflare Browser Run: Price browser usage and the Worker execution components required by the workload. The Browser Run pricing page, rather than a single browser-hour estimate, defines included allowances and applicable limits.

Sources: anchorbrowser.io [1] ↗developers.cloudflare.com [2] ↗

Compare operational limits

Anchor Browser: Anchor documents a batch-session API as well as asynchronous session creation. A large batch request is distinct from how quickly every browser becomes ready, so measure the ready state and plan-specific conditions.

Cloudflare Browser Run: Browser Run has its own limits and pricing alongside Workers. Account browser capacity, session creation limits and the Worker execution budget constrain different parts of a workflow.

Sources: docs.anchorbrowser.io [1] ↗developers.cloudflare.com [2] ↗

Compare the execution model

Anchor Browser: Automation Tasks produce versioned workflows from a prompt or a recorded demonstration. Test and edit the workflow, then invoke it through the task API. Compare this authoring model with writing a handler directly.

Cloudflare Browser Run: Deploy browser automation within a Cloudflare Worker or connect to Browser Run from an external process over CDP. Workers provide the execution layer; compare their runtime and deployment model separately from browser access.

Sources: docs.anchorbrowser.io [1] ↗developers.cloudflare.com [2] ↗

How to evaluate this choice

A useful cost comparison gives both a usage estimate and the eligible monthly plan. Keep an unsupported workload out of the price ranking even if a rate can be multiplied into an attractive number.

  • Count attempted runs as well as successful runs.
  • Apply the provider's rounding rule to each session before adding usage.
  • Separate browser time, function compute, proxy traffic and identity services.
  • Apply included credits once; do not add the same subscription fee again.
  • Mark an ineligible plan as a capacity mismatch rather than a cheap option.

Requirements side by side

RequirementAnchor BrowserCloudflare Browser Run
Browser controlDocumentedDocumented
Saved browser stateDocumentedSession reuse / custom state
Code executionAutomation TasksWorkers composition
Deployment choiceCheck deployment offeringCloudflare service

Sources: docs.anchorbrowser.io [1] ↗docs.anchorbrowser.io [2] ↗docs.anchorbrowser.io [3] ↗docs.anchorbrowser.io [4] ↗docs.anchorbrowser.io [5] ↗docs.anchorbrowser.io [6] ↗developers.cloudflare.com [7] ↗

Which approach fits?

Choose Anchor Browser when you want managed sign-in and an automation task you can demonstrate, edit and invoke from your application.

Anchor Browser tradeoff: A demonstrated automation task and an arbitrary Python handler are different authoring models. Evaluate how much control you need over the code, dependencies and exact workflow.

Choose Cloudflare Browser Run when you already deploy Workers and want browser automation within that application's execution and scheduling model.

Cloudflare Browser Run tradeoff: A Worker and a browser session have separate resource and lifecycle constraints. Confirm the chosen browser library and binding path instead of assuming an unchanged local browser script will deploy directly.

Sources: docs.anchorbrowser.io [1] ↗developers.cloudflare.com [2] ↗

A useful acceptance check

Write a pass/fail result for the real task before running the evaluation. Record the account, configuration and code version next to that result. Repeat failures need an explanation, not an automatically different browser configuration.

When Notte belongs on this shortlist

Anchor's demonstration or prompt-authored Automation Tasks and Notte's Python Functions suit different authoring preferences. Both document website-authentication tooling, so a credible recommendation must address the actual login and workflow-editing path.

Cloudflare can be an economical architectural choice when Workers and the surrounding scheduling already exist in your application. Notte is worth evaluating when a browser, deployed Python handler and authentication workflow should share a product rather than a Workers composition.

Notte: Create an owned browser session, connect Playwright or Puppeteer over CDP, and stop the session when the work finishes. Browser lifecycle management remains necessary even when the control socket disconnects.

Consider this third option when its documented mechanism addresses a requirement left open by the two providers above. A working configuration on either original provider can still be the better choice; compare the task and ownership cost before switching.

Sources: docs.anchorbrowser.io [1] ↗developers.cloudflare.com [2] ↗docs.notte.cc [3] ↗

Keep comparing

Put the workflow to the test.

Try Notte Read the quickstart ↗