axuseGet axuse

Benchmark

axuse vs Playwright MCP. Every task, side by side.

Both tools drove the same AI model through the same 23 browser tasks, 71 runs each. Everything below is a median or a total across those runs. axuse used 21% less time, 23% fewer tokens and 40% fewer tool calls overall, and both passed every run.

Totals across all runs, axuse versus Playwright MCP
Across all 71 runs per toolPlaywright MCPaxuseDifference
Tasks passed71/7171/71same
Median time per task16 s13 s−19%
Total time1493 s1183 s−21%
Median tokens per task168k144k−14%
Total tokens15.38 M11.84 M−23%
Median tool calls per task85−38%
Total tool calls673402−40%

Task by task

Median per task, lower is better and shown in bold. axuse is equal or lower on time in 21 of 23 tasks and on tool calls in 23 of 23. It is not always ahead: Playwright MCP is faster on t5, t10 and uses fewer tokens on t1, t3, t8, t9, t12, t13, t14, t15, t17.

Per-task medians, Playwright MCP versus axuse. Bold marks the lower value.
TaskWhat it testsTimeTokensTool callsPassed
PlaywrightaxusePlaywrightaxusePlaywrightaxusePlaywrightaxuse
t1Click to reveal a code13 s9 s109k113k543/33/3
t2Fill a form (text, email, select, checkbox)14 s10 s135k91k733/33/3
t3Look up a price in a 150-row table9 s8 s74k94k333/33/3
t4Four-step wizard with server-side checks29 s16 s353k198k1673/33/3
t5Click inside a cross-origin iframe12 s13 s115k112k543/33/3
t6Settings inside nested shadow DOM16 s11 s158k118k743/33/3
t7Like one post in an infinite-scroll feed39 s30 s290k170k1265/55/5
t8Use a hover-only menu13 s12 s123k148k753/33/3
t9Answer a confirm() then a prompt() dialog15 s13 s157k178k763/33/3
t10Open a link in a new tab and come back17 s23 s220k144k1053/33/3
t11Wait for a 5 s job, then download26 s18 s197k168k963/33/3
t12Drag a card between kanban columns11 s11 s110k115k543/33/3
t13Write into a rich-text editor14 s11 s116k118k643/33/3
t14Pick from an autocomplete combobox21 s20 s205k225k1183/33/3
t15Debounced search plus pagination15 s15 s168k205k773/33/3
t16Click inside a canvas (needs vision)19 s12 s156k118k843/33/3
t17Test a local dev build end to end20 s18 s190k215k1083/33/3
t18Shop checkout with variants and a coupon42 s28 s641k390k26123/33/3
t19Approve one invoice in a 1,200-row grid34 s21 s368k148k1453/33/3
t20Choose dates in two date pickers38 s24 s586k405k21133/33/3
t21Sign-up form with validation errors20 s13 s222k118k1053/33/3
t22Fill a form nested in an embedded widget14 s12 s136k115k643/33/3
t23Upload a file15 s12 s149k139k853/33/3

How it was measured

Setup

  • Same agent harness (Codex CLI), same AI model and reasoning setting, same machine. Only the browser tool differs.
  • Playwright MCP 0.0.83 in headless Chrome, with its coordinate tools enabled; axuse in its own browser.
  • Both ran in a clean agent profile with no other browser or computer-use tools available, so neither could borrow another tool.
  • 23 tasks that browser agents commonly trip over: forms, wizards, tables, iframes, shadow DOM, infinite scroll, dialogs, new tabs, downloads, drag and drop, editors, comboboxes, canvas, uploads, a shop checkout and a virtual grid.

Scoring and honesty

  • A run passes only if the test site's own server records the right result and the agent reports the right value. Runs that bypass the browser are disqualified.
  • Time is wall-clock per task; tokens are the AI model's total token use for the task; a tool call is one request to the browser tool.

What this does not measure. The test pages are plain public sites with no login and no bot protection, so this compares speed, cost and accuracy on everyday browser work. It says nothing about axuse's other differences: using your own signed-in Chrome, handling verification challenges, and the workflow plug-ins. Playwright MCP is also not slow here; the gap is a median of 3 seconds and 24k tokens per task. Want the raw per-run data? Email [email protected].

Try it on your own tasks.