A Browserbase alternative that runs on your own accounts.
If you're outgrowing Browserbase, here's why teams switch to Writ - and exactly how to move without losing what's working.
Browserbase runs on their cloud: managed headless browser sessions you control via sdk. Writ runs on your accounts, and makes every workflow a REST API and an MCP tool.
A developer infrastructure platform that runs headless browsers in the cloud for you to drive with code or an agent framework.
What sends people looking for a Browserbase alternative
These are the reasons teams tell us they move. We name where Browserbase is still the better tool further down - switching should be an honest decision.
- ✓You want the whole platform (authoring, auth, scheduling, monitors, publishing, and billing), not just the browser.
- ✓You want workflows callable as a REST endpoint and an MCP tool with no infrastructure to build, and the option to run free on your own machine.
What Writ adds on top
The synthesis position: the four things that most often make the switch worth it.
Writ and Browserbase, side by side
The structural differences: billing unit, where runs execute, auth, MCP, marketplace. Reviewed June 2026.
| Criterion | Writ | Browserbase |
|---|---|---|
| Layer | A full platform: record, run, publish, monitor, and sell | Raw browser infrastructure you script yourself |
| Record without code | Recorder, AI sessions, and API discovery author it for you | No: you write the automation |
| Run on your own machine | Yes: local agent, no compute charge, intranet reach | No: cloud sessions only |
| Callable as an API + MCP | Built in: every workflow is a REST endpoint and MCP tool | You build and host that yourself |
| Marketplace | Recipe marketplace, every listing free to install | No |
Moving from Browserbase, step by step
Start small, prove it, then port the rest. You never have to switch everything at once.
- 1
Pick one Browserbase job to move
Start with a single workflow - the one that costs the most or breaks the most on Browserbase. A small first move de-risks the switch.
- 2
Rebuild it once in Writ
Record the flow in the browser recorder, describe it to an AI session, or discover the site's own API - whichever fits. You get a real, replayable workflow.
- 3
Call it as an API and MCP tool
Publish the workflow to get a REST endpoint at /v1/{slug}/{path} and an MCP tool, authenticated with a wt_ key.
- 4
Run it your way and compare
Run it free on your own machine or on metered cloud, watch the success rate, then port the rest of your Browserbase work at your own pace.
Keep what works. You can run Writ alongside Browserbase. Use Browserbase where it shines and add Writ for the parts it can't reach - sites with no API, authenticated in-browser actions, and any-site MCP tools. See the full comparison ▸
When Browserbase is still the right call
Browserbase is genuinely good at this.
- —Excellent, scalable headless-browser infrastructure for developers who want to build their own automation.
- —Strong session-management and reliability primitives, and clean SDKs.
- —A good fit as a lower-level building block under your own agent code.
Stay on Browserbase if
- —You are a developer who wants raw cloud-browser infrastructure and will write and host all the automation logic yourself.
- —You already have an agent framework and just need managed browser sessions to drive.
Switching from Browserbase - questions
Is Writ a good Browserbase alternative?
How do I migrate from Browserbase to Writ?
What does Writ cost compared to Browserbase?
Can Writ work on sites and accounts behind a login?
Do I have to give up Browserbase entirely?
Try Writ as your Browserbase alternative
Move one workflow first. Run it free on your own machine, see the success rate, then switch the rest at your own pace.