Browser Automation vs Skyvern

In-depth architectural comparison of the Browser Automation and Skyvern MCP servers. Compare execution transports, security boundaries, tool capabilities, quality scores, and ready-to-paste client installation snippets for Claude, Cursor, Windsurf, and VS Code.

Which MCP Server Should You Choose?

B

Choose Browser Automation when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Browser Automation domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Browser Automation Details

Choose Skyvern when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Browser Automation domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Skyvern Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	B Browser Automation Browser Automation	Skyvern Browser Automation
Summary	Programmatic headless browser sessions: create, interact, browse, and extract - rendered in a real	AI-powered browser automation — navigate, click, fill forms, and extract data from any website.
Category & Scope	Browser Automation	Browser Automation

Tools & Capabilities Breakdown

Ready-to-Paste Client Configurations

Paste either (or both) of these JSON server blocks into your client config file (e.g. claude_desktop_config.json or ~/.cursor/mcp.json).

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "browser-automation": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "browser-automation"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "skyvern": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "skyvern"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons