Transparency alternatives to Anchor Browser
Other Browser automation and web data vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Anchor Browser. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 25 that differ from Anchor Browser on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Anchor Browser has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Anchor Browser” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Anchor Browser | Found at Anchor Browser, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microlinkmicrolink.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Microlink | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Browser Usebrowser-use.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Browser Use | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Scrapingdogscrapingdog.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scrapingdog | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| ScrapingAntscrapingant.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ScrapingAnt | 35/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Scrapflyscrapfly.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Scrapfly | 43/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | nothing | Compare |
| Firecrawlfirecrawl.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Firecrawl | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | nothing | Compare |
| ScrapingBeescrapingbee.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ScrapingBee | 35/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | 2 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| ZenRowszenrows.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ZenRows | 35/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Apifyapify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Apify | 22/100 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Browse AIbrowse.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Browse AI | 17/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 2 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Browserlessbrowserless.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Browserless | 35/100 | 1 Data location stated | nothing | Compare |
| Hyperbrowserhyperbrowser.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Hyperbrowser | 35/100 | 1 Data location stated | nothing | Compare |
Only criteria we could measure for both are counted. Where we could measure one and not the other, the row is silent: that would be a statement about our measurement, not about either vendor. Every single result with its source is on the two profiles.