CloakBrowser vs Invisible Dots: 2026 comparison

CloakBrowser and Invisible Dots in brief

CloakBrowser and Invisible Dots address the same need: automating web interactions through Playwright and a modified browser. Both are open source, self-hostable projects released under the MIT licence. Their immediate distinction is technical positioning. CloakBrowser provides a modified Chromium browser with an SDK, while Invisible Dots describes itself as a web interaction agent, with no interface specified in the supplied information. Their GitHub star counts are close, but their ages and fork counts provide different signals about their communities.

CloakBrowser : CloakBrowser provides a modified Chromium browser compatible with Playwright for programmatic web browsing automation.

Invisible Dots : Invisible Dots is a self-hosted agent that automates web interactions using Playwright and a modified browser environment.

Both meet the same need, which makes the comparison useful. We compare them on 11 verifiable criteria, using the same data as their profiles, collected from official sites and GitHub.

Comparison table

Criterion by criterion

For each criterion: why it matters, each one's value and who has the edge. A criterion without data on both sides is not decided.

Popularity (GitHub stars)

Stars measure developer interest; a widely followed project has more tutorials, integrations and answers. CloakBrowser : 32.5K. Invisible Dots : 32.2K. Edge: CloakBrowser.

Activity over a year

Commits over 52 weeks show whether the project moves fast, fixes bugs and keeps up with new models. CloakBrowser : 362 commits. Invisible Dots : 358 commits. Edge: CloakBrowser.

Releases (6 months)

Regular releases signal a project that ships; very frequent releases can also mean frequent updates on your side. CloakBrowser : 16. Invisible Dots : 19. Edge: Invisible Dots.

Last commit

A repository with no commit for months may fall behind new APIs and security fixes. CloakBrowser : October 24, 2026. Invisible Dots : October 15, 2026. Edge: CloakBrowser.

License

A clear open-source license (MIT, Apache…) allows commercial use and modification; without one, usage rights are unclear. CloakBrowser : MIT. Invisible Dots : MIT. A tie on this point.

Self-hosting

Running the agent on your machine or server keeps your files and keys with you. CloakBrowser : yes. Invisible Dots : yes. A tie on this point.

Supported models

An agent that accepts several model families lets you pick the best value, or a local model. CloakBrowser : not disclosed. Invisible Dots : not disclosed. Cannot be decided: data missing on one side.

Interfaces

Terminal, code editor, web app or chat: more interfaces mean more ways to fit it into your work. CloakBrowser : 1. Invisible Dots : not disclosed. Cannot be decided: data missing on one side.

Risk level

Our risk level considers the access granted (terminal, files, network) and default human approval. CloakBrowser : moderate. Invisible Dots : moderate. A tie on this point.

Community (forks)

Forks count developers who copied the project to adapt it: a sign of a living ecosystem. CloakBrowser : 2.7K. Invisible Dots : 4.7K. Edge: Invisible Dots.

Track record

An older project has had time to fix early flaws; a recent one often brings the latest ideas. CloakBrowser : February 2026. Invisible Dots : August 2024. Edge: Invisible Dots.

In charts

Our analysis

CloakBrowser, maintained by CloakHQ, centres its offering on the browser itself. It supplies a modified Chromium browser compatible with Playwright, lists Python as its language and identifies an SDK as its interface. This makes it a plausible fit for developers adding browser automation to their own software. Invisible Dots, maintained by feder-cr, is described as an agent that automates web interactions using Playwright and a modified browser. Its listed language is TypeScript, while its interfaces are unspecified. These descriptions suggest different integration starting points, but do not establish differences in autonomy, ease of use or task completion.

As of 24 October 2026, CloakBrowser has 32,455 GitHub stars and 2,692 forks, compared with 32,222 stars and 4,729 forks for Invisible Dots. Their twelve-month commit totals are similar, at 362 and 358 respectively. Invisible Dots has 19 releases over six months, against 16 for CloakBrowser. Their latest commits are dated 15 October and 24 October respectively. CloakBrowser was created in February 2026; Invisible Dots dates from August 2024. Both receive 78 out of 100 for popularity, activity and project framework. That score does not measure automation quality, reliability or suitability for your particular workload.

Both projects use the MIT licence and support self-hosting. This gives you an option to run them on infrastructure you administer, but does not establish where every piece of data travels. The supplied records do not specify model choices, external data transfers or human approval mechanisms. Both have a medium risk classification, with web access given as the reason. For your deployment, the relevant questions therefore include which pages the automation can visit, what information it handles and which actions it may perform. Open source code offers an opportunity for inspection; it does not independently guarantee confidentiality or safe operation.

For everyday development, CloakBrowser provides an explicit integration route through its SDK and Playwright compatibility. Invisible Dots also uses Playwright and a modified browser, but its available interfaces are not detailed in the record. Your existing language environment, Python or TypeScript, is therefore a practical starting point for comparison. Neither record includes a price, so there is no basis for describing operation as cost-free. There are also no task success rates, resource consumption figures or maintenance estimates. Before choosing, assess how each project would fit your actual web workflows and how much integration work that fit would require.

Depending on your situation

The right choice depends on use. For a few common situations, here are the criteria that matter and who wins (CloakBrowser value / Invisible Dots value).

Trying it out quickly

Here, CloakBrowser has the edge: it wins 1 of the 3 criteria that matter in this situation, namely interfaces (1 / not disclosed), supported models (not disclosed / not disclosed), and popularity (github stars) (32.5K / 32.2K).

Production use

Here, CloakBrowser has the edge: it wins 2 of the 4 criteria that matter in this situation, namely activity over a year (362 commits / 358 commits), last commit (October 24, 2026 / October 15, 2026), license (MIT / MIT), and releases (6 months) (16 / 19).

Security and control

Neither stands out on the criteria for this situation (risk level (moderate / moderate) and self-hosting (yes / yes)): decide with a trial.

Which one to choose?

Choose CloakBrowser if…

• you value popularity (github stars) (32.5K)
• you value activity over a year (362 commits)
• you value last commit (October 24, 2026)

CloakBrowser is a logical option if you work in Python and want a modified Chromium browser exposed through an SDK. Its Playwright compatibility matches a clearly defined browser automation requirement. The latest commit, dated 24 October, is also a recent activity signal, although it does not establish stability or show that your particular tasks are supported.

Choose Invisible Dots if…

• you value releases (6 months) (19)
• you value community (forks) (4.7K)
• you value track record (August 2024)

Invisible Dots is worth considering if TypeScript fits your development environment and you want a project described as a web interaction agent. Its longer history, 4,729 forks and 19 releases over six months provide useful community and activity context. You should still establish the integration route, since the supplied record does not identify any interfaces.

Strengths and limits of each

CloakBrowser

• + Widely followed: 32.5K stars
• + Very active development
• + Frequent releases (30 in a year)

Invisible Dots

• + Widely followed: 32.2K stars
• + Very active development
• + Frequent releases (19 in a year)

The best test is still yours: take three real tasks from your day and give them to both for a week. Our “Which AI agent?” quiz can also guide you.

What about the others?

If neither suits you, look at Browser Use, Stagehand, Skyvern, BrowserOS, OpenCLI, and Moli.

Related comparisons:

• Browser Use vs CloakBrowser
• Browser Use vs Invisible Dots

Conclusion

Integration is the clearest deciding factor here. CloakBrowser explicitly lists a Python codebase and SDK, while Invisible Dots offers a TypeScript agent with more forks and a longer history. The available figures do not settle which performs your tasks more reliably. Choose according to your development environment and web workflows, then examine access controls and approval requirements. Their shared score of 78 is a project indicator, not a quality verdict.