Skip to main content

topic / Checked 2026-10-18

Notte vs Steel: deployed browser code

Where does the browser automation code run? Compare Notte and Steel using documented deployed browser code behavior and a practical evaluation method.

Where does the browser automation code run?

An external worker, a hosted browser Function, a browser-local app action and a hosted agent are different execution models. The choice determines who deploys the code, starts the browser, records the result and stops the run.

A scheduled job should return a verified result and stop its owned browser even when an action fails. The scheduler's successful HTTP trigger is not proof that the browser completed the business operation.

Compare the execution model

Notte: Functions deploy Python code with a run() entry point. Invoke them over HTTP or with an SDK, inspect run history, and roll back code by redeploying an earlier version as the latest version.

Steel: The reviewed browser documentation establishes sessions, profiles and credentials. It does not establish a hosted Python handler with deployment and invocation APIs. An external worker can control a Steel browser; price and operate that worker separately.

Sources: docs.notte.cc [1] ↗docs.steel.dev [2] ↗

Compare deployment ownership

Notte: Use a remote browser from your existing process or deploy the browser automation as a Notte Function. These choices put lifecycle, scheduling and monitoring responsibilities in different places.

Steel: Compare managed Steel with the documented self-hosted path explicitly. Self-hosting gives the team infrastructure responsibility that a hosted browser subscription would otherwise cover.

Sources: docs.notte.cc [1] ↗docs.steel.dev [2] ↗

Compare the evidence from a run

Notte: Live view shows an active browser and can be embedded in an application. Recordings let you review a finished session. Function runs have their own history and results, so keep the run ID alongside the browser session ID.

Steel: Steel documents live and past sessions as well as Agent Traces. Browser recordings answer what happened on the page; traces add context around the agent or application driving it.

Sources: docs.notte.cc [1] ↗docs.steel.dev [2] ↗

How to evaluate this choice

Keep an external runner when you already operate one and need portability. A native execution layer can remove deployment work; browser-local code can reduce repeated network calls. Compare actual workload behavior before assuming either always wins.

  • Confirm the supported language, entry point and dependency packaging.
  • Trace deployment, version selection, invocation and cancellation.
  • Keep the handler runtime limit separate from browser session duration.
  • Decide whether scheduling is native or supplied by another service.
  • Associate results and logs with both the code version and browser session.

Requirements side by side

RequirementNotteSteel
Code executionPython FunctionsExternal worker
Scheduled executionNativeExternal scheduler
Recordings / replayDocumentedDocumented

Sources: docs.notte.cc [1] ↗docs.notte.cc [2] ↗docs.notte.cc [3] ↗docs.notte.cc [4] ↗docs.notte.cc [5] ↗docs.notte.cc [6] ↗docs.steel.dev [7] ↗docs.steel.dev [8] ↗docs.steel.dev [9] ↗docs.steel.dev [10] ↗docs.steel.dev [11] ↗docs.steel.dev [12] ↗

Which approach fits?

Choose Notte when your browser workflow needs saved logins, credential fill or scheduled Python code alongside the browser.

Notte tradeoff: A saved profile restores browser state; it does not prove that a website still considers the user signed in. Use Managed Auth when the workflow needs connection readiness before it starts.

Choose Steel when you want browser infrastructure that can fit a self-hosted deployment, with profiles and credentials available through browser-focused APIs.

Steel tradeoff: Hosted and self-hosted Steel are different operating choices. A cloud feature's documentation does not establish identical packaging, retention or operational support in a self-hosted installation.

Sources: docs.notte.cc [1] ↗docs.steel.dev [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.

Keep comparing

Put the workflow to the test.

Try Notte Read the quickstart ↗