One antidetect browser, every multi-account workflow

Choosing between these, and what they share

None of the pages below is a different product, and moving between them costs nothing -- the categories exist to shorten your reading, not to divide the software, and the free plan is the same ten profiles whichever page you arrived through -- and nothing you configure in one is lost by approaching it as another, whichever door you came in through.

If you are not sure which of these you are, start with the free plan rather than the question. Ten profiles and a week of use will tell you which constraint binds for your work faster than any amount of reading, and the answer is frequently not the one people expect before they try. Operators who were sure their problem was fingerprints discover it was proxies; teams who came for isolation stay for the access control; researchers arrive for scale and end up caring most about session durability. The product does not mind which door was right -- but your budget will, so let the week tell you.

One more pattern across every solution here: the operations that last treat their setup as inventory. They know, without opening anything, which client owns which workspace, when each account last ran, and what changed before anything broke. They know which profile holds which account, which proxy it rides, which number verified it and when it was last opened -- not because record-keeping is fun, but because every recovery, every audit and every handover starts from that list. The tool keeps notes per profile for exactly this; the habit of filling them in is yours.

A short warning about all of them: none is a configuration you switch on. Each describes a way of working that takes a week to establish and then runs quietly, and the week is not optional in any of them.

If none of the categories above describes you exactly, that is normal and not a problem -- they are entry points rather than product editions, and every one of them runs the same software with the same limits. Pick the closest and adjust; nothing is configured differently underneath, and no plan is tied to a use case.

The solutions above are sorted by industry, role and team size because that is how people arrive. Underneath they are one problem: holding several identities that must not be linked, on platforms whose business depends on linking them, from a device built to be recognisable. What differs between them is not the mechanism but the constraint that binds first -- and knowing which one binds for you is most of the decision.

For a solo operator, the binding constraint is usually proxy budget. The browser subscription is the small half of the cost, and the temptation to economise on addresses is exactly where separation fails -- a flawless fingerprint arriving from an IP shared with fifty other accounts has already answered the question. Start with fewer accounts on better addresses rather than the reverse.

For an agency, the constraint is people, not technology. The failure mode is a shared login: one password the whole team knows, a contractor who leaves with it, and no way to revoke access to one client’s accounts without disrupting everyone. Members with their own credentials and explicit capabilities solve this -- somebody can launch profiles without being able to export cookies, and a departure becomes a row you disable. That matters more than any fingerprint feature the moment a third person is involved.

For research and data work, the constraint is throughput, and the answer is often less browser than people expect. A real browser is the right tool when a site requires one; where plain HTTP will do, it is faster and cheaper. The automation surface exists over both CDP and plain HTTP for that reason -- most work in this area is driven from a script or job runner rather than a browser-automation framework, and forcing a driver dependency into that stack is how projects stall.

For development and QA, the constraint is repeatability. Profiles are valuable here less for isolation than for determinism: a dozen clean, reproducible browser states with known fingerprints, timezones and locales, on demand, without maintaining a rack of virtual machines. The fingerprint stability that matters commercially elsewhere is what makes a test meaningful here.

One question cuts across all four and is worth settling early: how much of this should be automated. The instinct at scale is to script everything, and it is usually wrong at the start -- automation multiplies whatever pattern it is given, including a bad one, and twenty accounts moving in perfect synchrony are easier to spot than twenty moving by hand. The order that works is to run the process manually until it is boring, then automate the boring part, then vary the timing deliberately.

What all four share is that the hardware sets the real ceiling. Every profile is a genuine browser process with its own data directory -- around five concurrent per 4 GB -- so a plan’s profile count describes how many identities you may store, not how many browsers your machine will hold at once. Whichever solution above matches your work, size the machine for the number you need open simultaneously, not the number you own.