/ 3 min read / Nikola Balic

Steel vs Kernel: a practical comparison

Steel and Kernel both provide remote browser infrastructure for automation and agent workflows. This page focuses on the differences that typically matter in production: deployment surface, state semantics, execution model, and cost model.

Both platforms support mainstream automation stacks and cover the common “cloud browser” requirements. The choice usually comes down to how you want to run the browser layer, how you persist state across sessions, and how you pay for capacity.

At a glance

Common ground

Differences that matter

Summary

TopicSteelKernel
Deployment surfaceOpen-source + self-hosting and managed platform with enterprise supportManaged platform built around unikernel-based browsers
State modelProfile-based persistence for reusable auth/stateProfile-based persistence plus standby mode for idle browsers
Execution modelRemote sessions with agent-oriented SDK/integrationsRemote sessions plus co-located Playwright execution option
ObservabilityLive view + recordings/logging toolsLive view + replay/recording features (plan-dependent)
Agent model approachAgent-neutral browser APIIncludes an MCP server and code-execution workflows
Bot mitigationStealth/proxy/CAPTCHA options, plan-dependentStealth mode that bundles proxy + reCAPTCHA solver
Pricing modelTiered plans (predictable budgeting)Usage-based metering (pay per second; standby reduces idle cost)

Differences that matter

1) Deployment surface

Steel

Kernel

2) State and isolation

Steel

Kernel

3) Performance and reliability

4) Execution model

Steel

Kernel

5) Observability and debugging

Steel

Kernel

6) Pricing model

Steel

Kernel

When Steel is a good fit

Next step

Related posts