The workflow decision
For versioned browser deployments, the useful comparison is whether Notte or Tilion can meet the following outcome: New runs execute the intended implementation after rollback, while historical runs remain associated with the implementation that actually ran.
Providers differ on whether invocation selects a version or always runs the latest code. Rolling back can create a new latest deployment rather than changing an old run.
A proposed acceptance case
A team releases a browser automation change, discovers a regression and needs to restore a known implementation while retaining the history of affected runs.
This is an evaluation design, not a claim that this workflow has been executed successfully on every provider.
| Part of the test | Required observation |
|---|---|
| Controlled input | Two harmless code versions that return different markers and a recorded invocation for each version. |
| Pass condition | New runs execute the intended implementation after rollback, while historical runs remain associated with the implementation that actually ran. |
| Negative case | Invoke after changing the latest deployment and check whether the caller runs a pinned or latest version. The application must not infer the executed version from a filename. |
| Evidence to retain | Deployed implementation marker, invocation configuration, historical run version and rollback result. |
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.
| Requirement | Notte | Tilion |
|---|---|---|
| Code execution | Python Functions | Not established |
| Scheduled execution | Native | Not established |
| Recordings / replay | Documented | Not established |
Sources: docs.notte.cc [1] ↗docs.notte.cc [2] ↗tilion.com [3] ↗
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] ↗
Where the code runs
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.
Tilion: Public documentation reviewed for this comparison does not establish a deployable Function or app-action contract. Confirm where your automation code runs and how invocation, versioning and logs work before choosing the execution path.
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's Python deployment and run-history layer is relevant when release management belongs with browser execution. Its documented rollback approach redeploys an earlier implementation as the latest version.
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.
Retain another execution platform when its language, dependency packaging or version-selection contract is essential to the application. Similar version numbers do not establish the same invocation semantics.
Sources: docs.notte.cc [1] ↗docs.notte.cc [2] ↗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: Deployed implementation marker, invocation configuration, historical run version and rollback result.
Sources: notte.cc [1] ↗tilion.com [2] ↗
Make a bounded pilot
Deploy two safe versions, record the executed version with each result, and verify rollback using the documented version-selection behavior.
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.
- Save the source implementation and the version behavior callers rely on.
- Deploy two target implementations with visible markers and record which one runs.
- Rehearse restoring the earlier implementation before routing production invocations.