Browserbase vs Fellou
Browserbase vs Fellou: side-by-side comparison of two browser-agent memory systems — architecture, taxonomy, license, pricing, MCP/A2A support, and direct edges.
Cost & capability
| Browserbase | Fellou | |
|---|---|---|
| Capability band | competent | competent |
| Capability composite | 50 | 52 |
| Cost tier | free | premium |
| $/Mtok input | 0 | — |
| $/Mtok output | 0 | — |
| Use cases | Scoped Agentic, Long Running Session | Scoped Agentic, Long Running Session, Memory Augmented Chat |
Where they differ (11)
Rows where both sides have data and the values disagree — the shortlist of dimensions that actually distinguish these two systems.
| Browserbase | Fellou | |
|---|---|---|
| Capability composite | 50 | 52 |
| Cost tier | free | premium |
| Use cases | Scoped Agentic, Long Running Session | Scoped Agentic, Long Running Session, Memory Augmented Chat |
| Type | Programmatic session persistence (dev infra) | Spatial agentic browser + Agentic Memory |
| Created | 2024-06 | 2025-01 |
| Pricing | Free + paid | Free + paid: $19/mo (basic); $39.90/mo (standard); $199/mo (pro); freemium model |
| Funding | $40M total $300M val Series B · 2025-04 | $40M total Seed/Series A · 2025-01 |
| Deployment | Managed-only | Managed-only (browser app) |
| MCP | native (first-party) — Browserbase MCP | searched not found |
| Optimised for | programmatic browser session persistence | spatial agentic browser + Agentic Memory |
| Anti-fit | not for end-users; developer infrastructure only | not for enterprise / managed environments (early) |
At a glance
| Browserbase | Fellou | |
|---|---|---|
| Section | Browser-agent memory | Browser-agent memory |
| Tier | T1 | T1 |
| Type | Programmatic session persistence (dev infra) | Spatial agentic browser + Agentic Memory |
| Created | 2024-06 | 2025-01 |
| Pricing | Free + paid | Free + paid: $19/mo (basic); $39.90/mo (standard); $199/mo (pro); freemium model |
| Funding | $40M total $300M val Series B · 2025-04 | $40M total Seed/Series A · 2025-01 |
| Backend storage | custom | custom |
| Deployment | Managed-only | Managed-only (browser app) |
| API surface | REST, SDK: Python, JS/TS | — |
| Embedding | — | locked |
| Multi-tenancy | hard-isolation | hard-isolation |
| MCP | native (first-party) — Browserbase MCP | searched not found |
| A2A | searched not found | searched not found |
| OpenTelemetry | searched not found | searched not found |
| Optimised for | programmatic browser session persistence | spatial agentic browser + Agentic Memory |
| Anti-fit | not for end-users; developer infrastructure only | not for enterprise / managed environments (early) |
Taxonomy
| Axis | Browserbase | Fellou |
|---|---|---|
| storage | file | proprietary |
| retrieval | extraction-pull | agentic |
| persistence | session | long-term |
| update | overwrite | agent-controlled |
| unit | episode | trajectory |
| governance | inspectable | opaque |
| conflict | none | none |
Pros & cons
Browserbase
Pros: Most developer-friendly path to remote browser agents — memory is structured around session replays, not chat history.
Cons: Infrastructure-tier product; not useful directly to end users without an agent layer on top.
Fellou
Pros: Agentic browser with first-class memory of past task trajectories, not just URLs visited.
Cons: New entrant with limited track record; sustainability depends on funding traction.