Skip to main content

workload / Checked 2026-10-18

Notte vs Tilion for bursty browser workers

Many jobs arrive at once and need browsers, while most other times have little activity. Compare Notte and Tilion on the mechanism this job needs, the work that would move and a specific acceptance case.

The workflow decision

For bursty browser workers, the useful comparison is whether Notte or Tilion can meet the following outcome: The queue drains without exceeding the entitlement; every allocated browser is associated with one job and eventually released.

Browser slots and session creation rate constrain the burst independently. Queue work before allocating a browser, and apply bounded retries to avoid a synchronized retry wave.

A proposed acceptance case

A queue receives more browser jobs than the account can run at once. Workers must wait for capacity and recover slots after failed jobs.

This is an evaluation design, not a claim that this workflow has been executed successfully on every provider.

Part of the testRequired observation
Controlled inputA fixed burst of jobs, the account's documented concurrency entitlement and a bounded application queue.
Pass conditionThe queue drains without exceeding the entitlement; every allocated browser is associated with one job and eventually released.
Negative caseFail a job after browser allocation. Verify that the next queued job can acquire the recovered slot and that retries do not create untracked sessions.
Evidence to retainQueue arrival and start times, allocated sessions, completion counts and recovered capacity.

Documented mechanisms, side by side

These labels describe product mechanisms. The linked source and the acceptance case determine whether a mechanism meets this workflow's requirement.

RequirementNotteTilion
Browser controlDocumentedArena integration
Saved browser stateDocumentedNot established
Live viewDocumentedNot established
Deployment choiceEnterprise optionsNot established

Sources: docs.notte.cc [1] ↗docs.notte.cc [2] ↗docs.notte.cc [3] ↗docs.notte.cc [4] ↗tilion.com [5] ↗

Capacity and limits

Notte: The public plans list 5, 25 and 100 concurrent browser sessions, with custom limits on Enterprise. Session duration and concurrent capacity are separate plan limits; a larger technical API limit does not override the plan.

Tilion: Arena's observed test concurrency is a test configuration, not an account entitlement. Obtain the production concurrency and session creation limits for your access tier before sizing a fleet.

Sources: notte.cc [1] ↗tilion.com [2] ↗

Browser control

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.

Tilion: BrowserArena includes a Tilion session integration. The reviewed public Tilion homepage does not publish the full session API contract; obtain the supported connection and lifecycle instructions through its access flow.

Sources: docs.notte.cc [1] ↗tilion.com [2] ↗

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.

Tilion: The public access path currently points to a waitlist and contact. A production integration needs an agreed API contract, service access and ownership of the browser lifecycle.

Sources: docs.notte.cc [1] ↗tilion.com [2] ↗

Pricing model

Notte: The public usage rates are $0.01 per browser-hour, $0.05 per Function-hour and $10 per GB of managed proxy traffic. Paid plans return their price as usage credits. Price the relevant meters and plan eligibility for the workload.

Tilion: Arena provides an estimated usage rate for its test. The reviewed public homepage does not establish a self-serve production plan, allowances or overage terms. Obtain those terms before quoting a monthly bill.

Sources: notte.cc [1] ↗tilion.com [2] ↗

What should change the choice?

Notte is a candidate when its published concurrency tiers fit the queue and the team wants browser and Python execution resources in one platform. Capacity must be checked separately from the hourly rate.

Tilion: The reviewed Tilion homepage offers a waitlist and contact route. Arena's tested integration is useful evidence about a run, but a purchasing or migration decision still needs a documented access, state and execution contract; those unknowns must remain visible beside Notte's public docs.

An existing pool or queue integration can outweigh a rate difference when it already handles the burst reliably. A single-session latency result does not establish fleet behavior for any provider.

Sources: notte.cc [1] ↗docs.notte.cc [2] ↗docs.notte.cc [3] ↗tilion.com [4] ↗

The cost boundary

Use the same attempted work and eligible account capacity in both estimates. The browser-hour rate does not include every proxy, execution or identity meter, and the cost of an incomplete job is still part of the workflow budget.

The workload evidence should include: Queue arrival and start times, allocated sessions, completion counts and recovered capacity.

Sources: notte.cc [1] ↗tilion.com [2] ↗

Make a bounded pilot

Measure time to drain a fixed burst, total attempted starts, task success and the bill for both successful and failed work.

Use the same authorized account, input and final-state check in each configuration. Treat a missing product contract as an open question; do not turn an undocumented capability into an unsupported claim or a successful test result.

  • Keep admission control in place while introducing the target provider.
  • Move one queue partition and record allocation failures separately from task failures.
  • Compare drained jobs, leaked slots and cost per completed job before raising concurrency.

Keep comparing

Put the workflow to the test.

Try Notte Read the quickstart ↗