# CloakBrowser vs firecrawl

> Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.

| | CloakBrowser | firecrawl |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 75/100 | 91/100 ✓ |
| Rank in category | #2 of 11 in Browser Automation | #1 of 16 in Web Scraping |
| GitHub stars | 32 556 | 196 274 ✓ |
| Stars, last 30 days | +198 | +12 381 ✓ |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 5 | 9 ✓ |
| Latest release | chromium-v155.0.8059.39.2-pro · 27 Oct 2026 ✓ | apps/go-sdk/v1.15.0 · 8 Sept 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate ✓ | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Python | Typescript |

## Which one should you pick?

firecrawl scores 91/100 against 75/100 for CloakBrowser, so it is the safer default.

firecrawl ships more often: 9 stable releases in the past year, against 5 for CloakBrowser.

If you want the quickest setup, CloakBrowser is easier to run; firecrawl needs more configuration.

firecrawl is growing faster right now (+12 381 stars in 30 days).

## Details

- [CloakBrowser](https://selfhost.directory/project/cloakbrowser) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/cloakbrowser.md)
- [firecrawl](https://selfhost.directory/project/firecrawl) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/firecrawl.md)

---
Source: https://selfhost.directory/compare/cloakbrowser-vs-firecrawl