--- title: "browser-use vs magic" type: "comparison" canonical_url: "https://www.graphcanon.com/compare/browser-use-browser-use-vs-dtyq-magic" tools: ["browser-use-browser-use", "dtyq-magic"] --- # browser-use vs magic *GraphCanon updated Sep 20, 2026* ## Verdict Pick browser-use if browser-use is a Python-based repository for AI agents designed for browser automation using Playwright; pick magic if magic is an open-source suite combining AI agents with workflow management and collaboration tools like instant messaging. [browser-use](https://browser-use.com) reports 115k GitHub stars, 13k forks, and 439 open issues, last pushed Sep 15, 2026. [magic](https://www.magicrew.ai/) has 5.0k stars, 561 forks, and 17 open issues, last pushed Aug 12, 2026. Figures are from public GitHub metadata via [browser-use's repository](https://github.com/browser-use/browser-use) and [magic's repository](https://github.com/dtyq/magic). | | [browser-use](/tools/browser-use-browser-use.md) | [magic](/tools/dtyq-magic.md) | | --- | --- | --- | | Tagline | Agents that use the browser | All-in-one AI productivity platform | | Stars | 115,057 | 5,027 | | Forks | 12,667 | 561 | | Open issues | 439 | 17 | | Language | Python | TypeScript | | Adopt for | browser-use is a Python-based repository for AI agents designed for browser automation using Playwright. | Magic is an open-source suite combining AI agents with workflow management and collaboration tools like instant messaging. | | Persona | - | - | | Runtime | - | - | | License | MIT | Magic Open Source License based on Apache 2.0 with additional restrictions, ensuring modifications are open but retaining copyrights and disclaimers as per the license. | | Categories | AI Agents, Developer Tools | AI Agents, Developer Tools | ## Trust and health _Sourced signals - not a safety guarantee. No winner column._ | | [browser-use](/tools/browser-use-browser-use.md) | [magic](/tools/dtyq-magic.md) | | --- | --- | --- | | Maintenance | Very active (96%) | Steady (60%) | | Days since push | 2d | 33d | | Open issues (now) | 439 | 17 | | Stars delta | +5.7k (30d) | +48 (30d) | | Open issues delta | +82 (30d) | +3 (30d) | | Full report | [trust report](/tools/browser-use-browser-use/trust.md) | [trust report](/tools/dtyq-magic/trust.md) | ## Decision facts: browser-use - **Adopt for:** browser-use is a Python-based repository for AI agents designed for browser automation using Playwright. ## Decision facts: magic - **Requirements:** Requires Docker - **Adopt for:** Magic is an open-source suite combining AI agents with workflow management and collaboration tools like instant messaging. - **License detail:** Magic Open Source License based on Apache 2.0 with additional restrictions, ensuring modifications are open but retaining copyrights and disclaimers as per the license. ## Choose when ### Choose browser-use if… - browser-use is primarily Python; magic is TypeScript. - License: browser-use is MIT, magic is Other. - Tags unique to browser-use: ai-agents, ai-tools, browser-automation, playwright. - browser-use ships Docker support for self-hosted deployment. - When you need to automate browser actions with AI agents and prefer using Playwright for its robust capabilities in handling modern web applications. ### Choose magic if… - magic is primarily TypeScript; browser-use is Python. - License: magic is Other, browser-use is MIT. - Requirements: Requires Docker. - Tags unique to magic: agent, agi, ai, gpt. - When a diverse set of functionalities under one platform is required for managing workflows, automating tasks, and enabling seamless communication among team members. ## When NOT to use browser-use - If your project requires a different browser automation tool that is not Playwright, as browser-use is specifically tailored for Playwright integration. - When detailed documentation and integrations provided by browser-use do not align with your project's specific needs or if you prefer a more generalized approach to browser automation. ## When NOT to use magic - When focused exclusively on a specialized aspect of AI development like model training, as Magic offers an all-in-one solution which might add unnecessary complexity. - For users requiring immediate Windows OS compatibility without waiting for upcoming support releases, given that Windows is not currently supported in self-hosted setups. ## Common questions ### What is the difference between browser-use and magic? browser-use: Agents that use the browser. magic: All-in-one AI productivity platform. See the comparison table for live GitHub stats and shared categories. ### When should I choose browser-use over magic? Choose browser-use over magic when browser-use is primarily Python; magic is TypeScript; License: browser-use is MIT, magic is Other; Tags unique to browser-use: ai-agents, ai-tools, browser-automation, playwright; browser-use ships Docker support for self-hosted deployment; When you need to automate browser actions with AI agents and prefer using Playwright for its robust capabilities in handling modern web applications. ### When should I choose magic over browser-use? Choose magic over browser-use when magic is primarily TypeScript; browser-use is Python; License: magic is Other, browser-use is MIT; Requirements: Requires Docker; Tags unique to magic: agent, agi, ai, gpt; When a diverse set of functionalities under one platform is required for managing workflows, automating tasks, and enabling seamless communication among team members. ### When should I avoid browser-use? If your project requires a different browser automation tool that is not Playwright, as browser-use is specifically tailored for Playwright integration. When detailed documentation and integrations provided by browser-use do not align with your project's specific needs or if you prefer a more generalized approach to browser automation. ### When should I avoid magic? When focused exclusively on a specialized aspect of AI development like model training, as Magic offers an all-in-one solution which might add unnecessary complexity. For users requiring immediate Windows OS compatibility without waiting for upcoming support releases, given that Windows is not currently supported in self-hosted setups. ### Is browser-use or magic more popular on GitHub? browser-use has more GitHub stars (115,057 vs 5,027). Stars measure visibility, not whether either tool fits your constraints. ### Are browser-use and magic open source? Yes - both are open-source projects on GitHub (browser-use: MIT, magic: Other). ### Where can I find alternatives to browser-use or magic? GraphCanon lists graph-backed alternatives at [browser-use alternatives](/tools/browser-use-browser-use/alternatives) and [magic alternatives](/tools/dtyq-magic/alternatives) ([browser-use markdown twin](/tools/browser-use-browser-use/alternatives.md), [magic markdown twin](/tools/dtyq-magic/alternatives.md)), ranked by typed relationship edges rather than popularity votes. ### Is there a machine-readable version of this comparison? Yes. The markdown twin at [this comparison](/compare/browser-use-browser-use-vs-dtyq-magic.md) mirrors this page for agents and LLM crawlers, with the same stats table and FAQ answers. ### Which is better maintained, browser-use or magic? browser-use: Very active. magic: Steady. Compare maintenance labels, days since push, and release cadence in the trust section below - stars alone do not measure maintenance. ### Where are the full trust reports for browser-use and magic? GraphCanon publishes per-repo trust reports with dated maintenance, provenance, and scan summaries: [browser-use trust report](/tools/browser-use-browser-use/trust); [magic trust report](/tools/dtyq-magic/trust). --- **Machine-readable endpoints** - JSON: [`/api/graphcanon/graph?tool=browser-use-browser-use`](/api/graphcanon/graph?tool=browser-use-browser-use) - LLM index: [/llms.txt](/llms.txt) - Full corpus: [/llms-full.txt](/llms-full.txt) _GraphCanon - The knowledge graph for AI development. https://www.graphcanon.com/_