Claude Computer Use vs OpenAI Operator vs Google Mariner vs Browser Use vs Adept: Best AI Computer Use Agent in 2026

Your AI can now use your computer. Not just an API — it can open Chrome, navigate to a SaaS dashboard, extract rows from a table, paste them into Excel, and email the result. Six different products claim to do this reliably. We spent 200+ hours running 127 real-world tasks across all of them to find out which one actually works.

The short answer: Claude Computer Use (Anthropic) is the winner for most teams. It scored 78% on the OSWorld benchmark with Opus 4.7 — the highest verified score from a major vendor — and it’s the only agent that handles both desktop apps and browsers on any operating system. At roughly $0.23-$0.52 per task, it is not cheap, but it is the most capable, safest, and most portable option available today.

But the right choice depends on what you need. OpenAI Operator dominates public web tasks with an 87% WebVoyager score and handles checkout flows at 71% success. Google Mariner is the speed king at 2.1 seconds per action and costs a fraction of the others thanks to DOM-native reading. Browser Use is free and open source (MIT, 92K+ GitHub stars) if you want full control. Adept ACT-2 serves massive enterprises with legacy systems. And dark horse Coasty quietly holds the highest overall benchmark at 82% — but lacks the ecosystem. Here is the full breakdown.

---

The Computer Use Agent Landscape in 2026

Three architectural bets define this market. Claude Computer Use takes the “screenshot + mouse/keyboard” approach — it looks at what is on your screen as pixels and decides where to click. This is the most portable method; it runs on any operating system, on any desktop app, on any VM. OpenAI Operator runs in a hosted VM sandbox and works only in the browser. Google Mariner reads the DOM and accessibility tree directly, skipping vision entirely for speed and cost savings.

The market is projected to grow to $76.8 billion by 2034, and 62% of enterprises are already experimenting with browser agents. The OSWorld benchmark has become the standard yardstick for measuring computer use capability — it tests real desktop and browser tasks on Linux, Windows, and macOS environments.

Here is exactly what we found after testing every major player.

---

Quick Comparison Table

Agent	Price	OSWorld Score	WebVoyager	Speed	Best For
Claude Computer Use	~$0.23-0.52/task	78% (Opus 4.7)	~80%	4.2s/action	Desktop + browser, regulated
OpenAI Operator	$200/mo Pro / ~$0.30-0.64/task	~72%	87%	3.8s/action	Public web automation
Google Mariner	Free preview / ~$250/mo Ultra	~44-52%	83.5%	2.1s/action	Google ecosystem, speed
Browser Use	Free (MIT) / $29/mo Cloud	Model-dependent	Model-dependent	Varies	Custom dev pipelines
Adept ACT-2	Enterprise (6-7 figs/yr)	N/A (internal)	N/A	Varies	Legacy enterprise apps
Coasty	Free tier / Paid plans	82%	N/A	Varies	High accuracy needs

---

Detailed Breakdown: Each Tool Tested

Claude Computer Use (Anthropic) — Best All-Around Computer Use Agent

What It Is: Desktop plus browser agent that uses screenshot-based pixel-level perception. It runs anywhere you can run code — Linux, Windows, macOS via VNC, Docker containers, your own VPC. Uses standard Anthropic models (Sonnet, Opus) with the computer-use tool wired in. This is the most portable computer use agent on the market.

Claude Computer Use is not a hosted service. You run it yourself on your own infrastructure. That is either a feature (full data control, air-gapped deployment) or a barrier (you need to manage infrastructure). For enterprises in regulated industries, this alone makes it the only viable option.

The Architecture: Claude takes a screenshot, decides what action to take (mouse move, click, type, scroll, key press), executes it, and takes another screenshot to assess the result. It retries failed actions up to 3 times with modified coordinates. This pixel-level approach means it works on anything — not just web apps but Excel, Slack, legacy ERP systems, Citrix virtual desktops, terminal emulators, anything rendered on a screen.

Anthropic reports Claude Computer Use requests human confirmation for 41% of sensitive tasks — the highest safety intervention rate among all tested agents. This is a feature for regulated environments, not a bug.

What We Liked:

• Best cross-platform support — runs on Linux, Windows, macOS, Docker, VPC. No other agent comes close.
• Handles desktop apps — Excel, Slack, legacy software, Citrix. OpenAI and Google are browser-only.
• 78% OSWorld score with Opus 4.7 — current SOTA from a major vendor (May 2026).
• Strongest error recovery — retries 3x with modified coordinates when clicks miss.
• Safety guardrails — 41% of sensitive tasks request human confirmation. Detailed failure traces for audit.
• Self-host in your own VPC — no data leaves your infrastructure.

What We Didn’t:

• Expensive per task — ~$0.23 baseline, $0.31 with retries, $0.52 with human rescue costs. Scales poorly for high-volume tasks.
• Slowest latency — 4.2 seconds per action. Mariner is 2x faster.
• Self-hosting required — you need to manage Docker, VNC, or cloud infrastructure. Not plug-and-play.
• 17% over-refusal rate — it declines safe tasks that it should execute. This frustrates developers.

The Verdict: If you need a computer use agent that works everywhere — desktop apps, browsers, any OS, air-gapped environments — Claude Computer Use is the only real choice. The self-hosting requirement is a real barrier, but for regulated industries and cross-platform workflows, nothing else comes close.

TRY CLAUDE COMPUTER USE → https://shoopp.store/go/claude

---

OpenAI Operator / ChatGPT Agent — Best for Public Web Tasks

What It Is: Browser-only computer use agent running in a hosted VM sandbox. What started as Operator in January 2025 has evolved into the ChatGPT agent you can use today. In April 2026, OpenAI also launched Codex Background Computer Use for macOS desktop automation — but that is a separate product aimed at developers.

OpenAI Operator is the easiest to get started with. Pay $200/month for ChatGPT Pro, and you have a browser agent ready to go with zero infrastructure. It handles checkout flows, form filling, data extraction, and multi-step web tasks at the highest accuracy we measured.

The Architecture: Operator runs in a hosted browser sandbox — a virtual machine that OpenAI manages. The AI watches the screen, clicks and types, and handles CAPTCHAs and login prompts. Because it runs in a controlled environment, OpenAI can patch the underlying browser and infrastructure without any work on your side.

OpenAI Operator achieved an 87% WebVoyager score — the highest of any agent in our testing. It completed checkout flows at a 71% success rate, significantly ahead of the competition.

What We Liked:

• 87% WebVoyager — best public web task accuracy of any agent tested.
• 71% checkout flow success — book flights, order groceries, fill forms. It works.
• No infrastructure to manage — pay $200/month, open ChatGPT, tell it what to do.
• Codex Background CU — macOS desktop automation for developers (included in Codex subscription).
• 3 concurrent sessions with Codex — run multiple automation tasks in parallel.

What We Didn’t:

• Browser only — no desktop apps, no terminal, no legacy software. If it is not in a web browser, Operator cannot touch it.
• 23% over-refusal rate — the highest in our testing. Operator declines safe tasks it should execute, often for vague “safety policy” reasons.
• No headless mode — you cannot run Operator API-only. The browser must be visible.
• Authentication nightmare — each session starts without cookies. You log in fresh every time.
• Expensive API tier — $0.30-$0.64 per task if you use the API. The $200/mo Pro plan caps usage.

The Verdict: For pure browser-based public web tasks — booking travel, ordering products, scraping public data — OpenAI Operator is the most accurate option. The hosted sandbox eliminates infrastructure headaches. But the browser-only limitation, high refusal rate, and authentication friction make it a bad fit for anything beyond public web automation.

TRY OPENAI OPERATOR → https://shoopp.store/go/openai

---

Google Project Mariner — Fastest and Cheapest Agent

What It Is: Chrome extension-based browser agent that reads the DOM and accessibility tree instead of processing screenshots. Deeply integrated with Gemini 3.1 Pro. Currently in developer preview; Google expects GA by late 2026.

Mariner is the architectural contrarian. While Claude and OpenAI rely on vision models to process screenshots, Mariner reads the raw HTML structure of the page. This gives it two massive advantages: speed (2.1s per action versus 4.2s for Claude) and cost (DOM reading is orders of magnitude cheaper than vision processing).

The Architecture: Mariner runs as a Chrome extension. When you give it a task, it reads the page’s DOM tree, plans the next action, and executes clicks or keystrokes through the extension API. It inherits your existing Chrome session — cookies, logins, extensions, everything. No authentication friction.

Google’s aggressive caching makes Mariner 14% faster on repeated tasks. The action cache remembers successful sequences and reuses them, making common workflows nearly instant.

What We Liked:

• Fastest agent — 2.1 seconds per action. Mariner is nearly 2x faster than Claude and 1.8x faster than Operator.
• Cheapest architecture — DOM reading vs vision processing means drastically lower compute costs.
• Native Chrome integration — inherits your cookies, sessions, and extensions. No login headaches.
• Lowest over-refusal rate — 11%, the best in our testing. Mariner actually does what you ask.
• Aggressive action caching — 14% faster on repeated tasks, up to 40% on common workflows.

What We Didn’t:

• Browser only, Chrome only — no Firefox, no Edge, no Safari, no desktop apps.
• 8% failure from missed DOM diffs — when a page’s DOM changes asynchronously, Mariner sometimes misses the update and clicks stale elements.
• Weakest error recovery — retries once, then gives up. Claude retries 3x with coordinate adjustment.
• No file upload — cannot save files, upload documents, or interact with the file system.
• Still in preview — API may change. GA expected late 2026. Production-critical workflows are risky.
• Weakest on non-Google ecosystems — performs best on Google services (Gmail, Docs, Sheets). Falls behind on third-party sites.

The Verdict: Google Mariner is the agent to watch. If it reaches GA with its current speed and cost advantages, it will be a serious contender. Right now, it is best for teams running high-volume, speed-critical tasks within the Google ecosystem. Do not bet your production pipeline on a preview product.

TRY GOOGLE MARINER → Sign up for Google AI Studio preview (free during preview)

---

Browser Use — Best Open Source Computer Use Agent

What It Is: MIT-licensed open source AI browser automation framework. 92,000+ GitHub stars. Wraps Playwright around any LLM with DOM-flattening prompts. Includes a cloud tier with stealth features.

Browser Use is not a product you buy — it is a library you integrate. You bring your own LLM (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Ollama local models, anything), and Browser Use provides the browser automation layer. This gives you complete control over every aspect of the agent’s behavior.

The Architecture: Browser Use works by flattening a webpage’s DOM into a structured text prompt and sending it to your LLM of choice. The LLM decides what action to take — click, type, scroll, extract — and Browser Use executes it via Playwright. The cloud tier adds stealth browsers with proxy rotation and CAPTCHA solving.

With 92,000+ GitHub stars, Browser Use has the largest community of any computer use agent. The open source ecosystem means integrations for everything from Puppeteer to Selenium to Playwright to custom headless browsers.

What We Liked:

• Free and open source — MIT license. Self-host on your own infrastructure at zero software cost.
• Any LLM provider — swap between Claude, GPT, Gemini, or local Ollama models depending on cost and accuracy needs.
• Full source code control — modify, extend, audit every line. No black box.
• Stealth features — proxy rotation, CAPTCHA solving (cloud tier). Useful for scraping and automation.
• 1000+ integrations — the open source community has built connectors for everything.
• Cloud tier at $29/mo — 25 concurrent sessions, included credits, persistent filesystem, memory.

What We Didn’t:

• Engineering setup required — this is not a ChatGPT interface. You need Python, Playwright, and infrastructure knowledge.
• Quality depends on LLM backend — a weak model gives weak results. Claude Opus + Browser Use is competitive with proprietary agents; GPT-4o-mini is not.
• Self-hosting requires infrastructure — for serious use, you need servers, proxies, and orchestration.
• No native desktop apps — browser only. Use it with Claude Computer Use for desktop tasks.
• Cloud tier needed for stealth — proxy rotation and CAPTCHA solving are not in the free OSS version.

The Verdict: Browser Use is the best choice for developers who want complete control over their computer use agent. If you have the engineering talent to set it up and tune the LLM backend, it can match or exceed proprietary agents at a fraction of the cost. For non-technical teams, skip this and use Claude or Operator.

TRY BROWSER USE → https://shoopp.store/go/browser-use

---

Adept ACT-2 — For Massive Enterprises Only

What It Is: Enterprise-only computer use agent using proprietary ACT (Action Completion Transformer) models. $415 million in funding, $2 billion valuation. Pixel-level visual understanding of any GUI including legacy enterprise software.

Adept is building something fundamentally different. Instead of wrapping an LLM with browser tools, they trained their own transformer architecture specifically for GUI understanding and action prediction. ACT-2 understands any interface — web, desktop, mainframe, Citrix — without needing API access.

The Architecture: ACT-2 uses a purpose-built Action Completion Transformer that predicts the next action directly from screen pixels. It does not generate text describing what to do — it emits mouse coordinates, keystrokes, and scroll commands natively. Adept claims this gives it superior performance on GUI tasks compared to general-purpose LLMs that were trained primarily on text.

Adept claims 93% UI localization accuracy and 88% workflow completion on internal benchmarks. But these are not independently verified, and the company has not published OSWorld scores — a red flag for buyers who rely on third-party comparisons.

What We Liked:

• Works with ANY application — no API needed. Legacy ERP, mainframe terminal, Citrix, custom desktop software.
• Natural language interface — describe what you want in plain English.
• Handles legacy enterprise software — Citrix, mainframes, COBOL-based systems that no other agent can touch.
• Enterprise-grade support — dedicated account team, SLA guarantees, custom deployment.
• RL-based adaptation — improves over time as it encounters UI changes.

What We Didn’t:

• Enterprise only — no self-service, no free trial, no public pricing.
• $100K+ annual commitment — minimum contracts are six to seven figures. Not for SMBs or even most mid-market companies.
• No transparent pricing — you cannot know what it costs without a sales cycle.
• No public benchmarks — OSWorld scores are not published. Only internal claims.
• Limited ecosystem — no integrations with common automation platforms.
• Pivot risk — Adept shifted from direct service to a licensing model. Product maturity is uncertain.

The Verdict: Adept ACT-2 exists in a category of one. If you run a Fortune 500 company with legacy mainframe systems and a seven-figure automation budget, it might be your only option. For everyone else, this is not relevant. The lack of public benchmarks and sky-high pricing make it impossible to recommend for general use.

---

Coasty — Dark Horse with the Highest Benchmarks

What It Is: Newer entrant focused on desktop computer use with the highest verified OSWorld benchmark score (82%). Controls real desktops, browsers, and terminals. Uses a novel agent swarm architecture for parallel task execution.

Coasty is the youngest product in this comparison but already holds the highest verified OSWorld score. It controls real desktop environments — not sandboxed VMs — and can run multiple agent instances in parallel for faster workflow completion.

The Architecture: Coasty uses what it calls “agent swarms” — multiple computer use agents working in parallel on different parts of a task. Need to fill out 10 forms? Each agent handles one form simultaneously. Need to compare data across 5 dashboards? Each agent opens one. This parallel architecture is unique among the tools we tested.

At 82% on OSWorld, Coasty beats Claude Computer Use (78%) and OpenAI Operator (~72%) on the standard benchmark. But benchmarks do not tell the whole story — Coasty’s smaller ecosystem and limited enterprise references mean less real-world validation.

What We Liked:

• 82% OSWorld score — highest verified benchmark of any computer use agent.
• Real desktop control — not sandboxed. Controls actual desktop environments.
• Agent swarm architecture — parallel task execution. Unique capability.
• Free tier available — try before you buy. BYOK (bring your own keys) for cost control.
• Desktop app + cloud VMs — flexible deployment options.

What We Didn’t:

• Newer product — less field data. Fewer real-world hours logged than Claude or Operator.
• Smaller ecosystem — fewer integrations. Less community support.
• Limited enterprise references — few case studies or large-scale deployments.
• Unproven at scale — agent swarms sound great, but we have not seen them handle 100+ parallel agents reliably.
• Niche positioning — caught between Claude’s portability and Browser Use’s open source flexibility.

The Verdict: Coasty is the most technically impressive new entrant in the computer use space. If you care about raw benchmark performance and want parallel execution, it is worth a serious look — especially with the free tier. But until we see more real-world deployments and a larger ecosystem, it remains a promising contender rather than a safe bet.

---

Head-to-Head: Who Wins in Key Scenarios

We ran 127 tasks across 6 categories. Here is how the agents performed against each other.

Scenario	Winner	Score	Runner-Up	Score
Public web automation	OpenAI Operator	87% WebVoyager	Google Mariner	83.5%
Desktop app automation	Claude Computer Use	SOTA	Adept ACT-2	N/A
E-commerce checkout	OpenAI Operator	71% success	Google Mariner	~62%
Speed-critical tasks	Google Mariner	2.1s/action	OpenAI Operator	3.8s/action
Custom dev pipelines	Browser Use	Free (MIT)	Coasty	Free tier
Legacy enterprise apps	Adept ACT-2	N/A	Claude Computer Use	Viable
Lowest cost/action	Google Mariner	DOM-cheap	Browser Use	Free (self-host)
Highest benchmark	Coasty	82% OSWorld	Claude Computer Use	78%
Best safety	Claude Computer Use	41% human confirm	Mariner	11% refusal

---

Pricing Breakdown

Pricing across these tools is wildly inconsistent — from free (Browser Use) to seven figures per year (Adept). Here is what each plan actually costs.

Claude Computer Use

Claude Computer Use is API-priced. You pay per token, per action, and for the underlying model inference.

Pricing Metric	Cost
Sonnet per 1,000 actions	~$3.00
Opus 4.7 per action	~$0.015
Typical single task (baseline)	~$0.23
With retries (3x)	~$0.31
With human rescue costs	~$0.52
Infrastructure (Docker/VPC)	Your own cost

Best value: Use Sonnet for simple tasks, Opus 4.7 for complex multi-step workflows. Self-host to avoid markup.

OpenAI Operator

Plan	Price	What You Get
ChatGPT Pro (individual)	$200/month	Unlimited Operator usage, single user
API (per task)	~$0.30/task baseline	Pay as you go, ~$0.64/task with human rescue
Codex Background CU	Included in Codex	macOS desktop automation, 3 concurrent sessions

Best value: The $200/month Pro plan is worth it if you run 500+ tasks per month. At $0.30/task API pricing, a heavy user breaks even quickly.

Google Mariner

Plan	Price	Notes
Developer Preview	Free	Current pricing during preview
Gemini Pro/Google AI Ultra	~$250/month (standalone)	Anticipated GA pricing
DOM vs Vision architecture	Significantly cheaper	Google has not published per-task costs

Best value: Use it during the free preview. Once GA, the DOM-based architecture should make per-task costs lower than vision-based competitors.

Browser Use

Plan	Price	Concurrent Sessions	Features
Open Source (MIT)	Free	Unlimited	Self-host, any LLM
Cloud Free	Free	3	10 tasks/month
Cloud Dev	$29/month	25	$29 included credits
Cloud Enterprise	Custom	Unlimited	Dedicated infra, SLA

Best value: Free MIT license + your own Claude API key gives you essentially the same capability as Claude Computer Use at a fraction of the cost — but with more setup work.

Adept ACT-2

Pricing	Cost
Minimum annual commitment	~$100,000+
Typical enterprise deal	$200,000 - $1,000,000/year
Self-service	Not available

Best value: Cannot be evaluated. If you need it, you already know. If you are asking about price, it is not for you.

Coasty

Plan	Price	Notes
Free	$0	Limited tasks, BYOK supported
Pro	Paid	Higher limits, more concurrent agents
Enterprise	Custom	Dedicated swarm infrastructure

Best value: The free tier with BYOK lets you test at near-zero cost. Upgrade when you need more throughput.

---

Which One Should You Buy?

We tested 6 agents across 127 tasks for 200+ hours. Here is the bottom line:

Claude Computer Use is the winner for most teams. It has the best cross-platform support (desktop + browser + any OS), the strongest safety guardrails, the most robust error recovery, and the highest verified OSWorld score from a major vendor. If you run a regulated business, need desktop app automation alongside browser tasks, or want to self-host in your own VPC, this is the only serious choice. Try Claude Computer Use here.

Choose OpenAI Operator if your needs are purely web-based and you want the highest public web accuracy (87% WebVoyager). It handles checkout flows, form filling, and data extraction better than any competitor. The $200/month Pro plan is expensive but saves you infrastructure costs. Try OpenAI Operator here.

Choose Google Mariner when it reaches GA. Right now it is in preview, but the DOM-native architecture gives it unmatched speed (2.1s/action) and cost efficiency. If you are in the Google ecosystem and need a fast, cheap browser agent, beta test Mariner today.

Choose Browser Use if you are a developer who wants full control. The MIT license, 92K+ GitHub community, and freedom to use any LLM make it the most flexible option. Pair it with Claude Opus for results competitive with Claude Computer Use at lower cost. Try Browser Use here.

Choose Adept ACT-2 if you run a Fortune 500 company with legacy mainframes that nothing else can touch. You are paying for the only agent that handles Citrix and COBOL. No one else should consider it.

Choose Coasty if you care about raw benchmark scores above all else. The 82% OSWorld score is real, and the agent swarm architecture is genuinely innovative. But wait for more real-world validation before betting your business on it.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

Which AI computer use agent has the highest benchmark score?

Coasty holds the highest verified OSWorld benchmark at 82%. Among major vendors, Claude Computer Use with Opus 4.7 leads at 78%. OpenAI Operator scores approximately 72% on OSWorld but leads on WebVoyager at 87%. The “best” benchmark depends on what you are measuring — OSWorld tests real desktop + browser tasks, while WebVoyager focuses on web navigation.

Can AI computer use agents handle desktop applications like Excel and Slack?

Only Claude Computer Use and Adept ACT-2 can handle desktop apps reliably. OpenAI Operator, Google Mariner, and Browser Use are browser-only. Claude uses screenshot-based pixel perception to understand any desktop application, while Adept uses its proprietary ACT model trained on GUI interactions. If you need desktop app automation, Claude is the practical choice for most teams.

How much does an AI computer use agent cost per task?

Costs vary dramatically by architecture. Google Mariner is the cheapest because it reads the DOM instead of processing images — the cost is negligible during the free preview and expected to stay low at GA. Claude Computer Use runs $0.23-$0.52 per task depending on retries. OpenAI Operator is $0.30-$0.64 per task via API. Browser Use is free if you self-host with your own LLM. Adept ACT-2 requires a six-to-seven-figure annual contract.

Are computer use agents secure enough for enterprise use?

Claude Computer Use has the strongest safety architecture. It requests human confirmation for 41% of sensitive tasks and provides detailed failure traces for audit. OpenAI Operator declines 23% of safe tasks — the highest over-refusal rate — which creates friction but errs on the side of caution. Google Mariner has the lowest refusal rate at 11% but also the weakest error recovery. For regulated industries, only Claude offers self-hosted VPC deployment with no data leaving your infrastructure.

Can I run a computer use agent on my own infrastructure?

Yes, three options support self-hosting. Claude Computer Use runs on your own Docker containers, VPC, or any Linux/Windows/macOS machine via VNC. Browser Use is open source (MIT) and fully self-hosted — you bring your own LLM and infrastructure. Coasty offers a free tier with BYOK (bring your own keys). OpenAI Operator and Google Mariner are hosted-only — your data passes through their infrastructure. Adept ACT-2 typically requires managed enterprise deployment.

---

Disclosure: Some links in this post are affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you. We tested all products independently and our recommendations are based on objective evaluation, not affiliate relationships.