A benchmark report compares how modern large models perform when asked to use a browser like a human, measuring accuracy, latency (seconds), and cost per task across different harnesses (integration setups) and providers. The central claim is that the harness that drives an agent - how prompts, tools, and orchestration are arranged - shapes outcomes as much as the underlying model. Results are presented as ranked runs (15 shown of 70 total), and the SDK for running these browser-agent experiments is provided so teams can reproduce or add their own models and harnesses.
The numeric findings illustrate the claim: top accuracy was 89.0% for claude-opus-5-5 on the "claude code" harness (326s, $0.51), followed by gpt-6-astra on "codex" at 87.0% (320s, $3.07) and claude-fable-5-1 on "claude code" at 84.0% (552s, $1.63). The same model shows wide variation by harness: claude-opus-5 ranges from 78% accuracy (678s, $2.44) to 71% with an "fx" harness that costs $10.02 and runs 735s. Other examples highlight tradeoffs: gpt-6-sol hits 76% in 268s for $0.41, while gpt-6-luna posts 74% for only $0.0225. The dataset makes clear that integration and orchestration choices materially alter accuracy, speed, and cost.
Summary generated by AI from the linked article. hn.today is not affiliated with Hacker News or Y Combinator.