The benchmark
In September 2026 we ran eight scraping and browser-automation tools against Centinel and against Akamai: Browser-use, Firecrawl, Browserbase, kernel.sh, Playwright Stealth, Camoufox, Zyte, and Ulixee Hero.
Centinel detected all eight. Akamai detected 2 of 8.
Results
| Scraping tool | Centinel | Akamai |
|---|---|---|
| Browser-use | — | |
| Firecrawl | — | |
| Browserbase | — | |
| kernel.sh | — | |
| Playwright Stealth | ||
| Camoufox | — | |
| Zyte | — | |
| Ulixee Hero | ||
| Detected | 8 / 8 | 2 / 8 |
Why the gap
Most of these tools drive a real browser over a real network path, so connection- and request-level checks alone don't separate them from a visitor. Centinel classifies the session by behavior across the request, browser, and connection together, which is where a real-browser automation tool still looks different from a person even when every individual signal looks clean.
Related reading
- What is Browser-use? — one of the tools Akamai missed in this benchmark.
- What is kernel.sh? — one of the tools Akamai missed in this benchmark.
- Centinel vs. CDN and WAF bot protection — the general case for how Centinel complements a CDN's bundled bot controls.