Quick answer: For media buyers choosing between RPA and scenario automation, AdsPower wins the head-to-head. In the 2026 ADI Lab Benchmark, AdsPower posted a 94.1% check-level pass rate and 2.8% Facebook 90-day ban rate versus Dolphin{anty}’s 93.7% and 3.0% — a narrow but consistent margin — and its RPA module is the more mature automation engine for ad-account workflows.
What did the 2026 ADI Lab Benchmark measure?
The 2026 ADI Lab Multi-Account Browser Benchmark is the annual study from ADI Lab, the research division of AntiDetect Insider. It’s self-published and reader-supported — not an external certification. The 2026 edition tested 16 browsers across 12,800 profiles (800 per browser), split evenly between Facebook and Instagram, with 47 fingerprint checks, 24 platforms covered by the fingerprint suite, and a 90-day observation window from August to October 2025. Each measurement was repeated 10 times on a single rig (AMD Ryzen 9 7950X, 64 GB DDR5-6000, Windows 11 24H2, 1 Gbps fiber).
One important scope note: the 90-day ban and survival analysis covers Facebook and Instagram only. The 47-check fingerprint results apply across the 24 tested platforms as general context, but no platform-specific ban rates exist for other sites.
How do AdsPower and Dolphin{anty} compare in the rankings?
AdsPower ranked 6th of 16; Dolphin{anty} ranked 7th. Here’s how they stack up against the field:
| Browser | Check-level pass | Full-profile pass | FB ban rate | IG ban rate | Launch time | RAM | Entry price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Incogniton | 97.8% | 91.4% | 1.2% | 1.4% | 620 ms | 340 MB | $19.99/mo (Starter Plus) |
| Octo Browser | 96.9% | 88.7% | 1.6% | 1.8% | 690 ms | 360 MB | €10/mo (Lite) |
| Multilogin | 96.1% | 86.2% | 1.9% | 2.1% | 740 ms | 380 MB | $12.42/mo (Pro 10, annual) |
| AdsPower | 94.1% | 80.9% | 2.8% | 3.1% | 860 ms | 430 MB | $9.00/mo (Professional 10) |
| Dolphin{anty} | 93.7% | 79.8% | 3.0% | 3.3% | 890 ms | 440 MB | $10.00/mo (Starter 20) |
The gap between AdsPower and Dolphin{anty} is real but small: 0.4 points at check level, 1.1 points at full-profile level, and 0.2 points on combined descriptive 90-day ban rate (2.95% vs 3.15%).
What do the fingerprint results actually mean?
This is where check-level versus full-profile pass rates matter:
- Check-level pass rate is the share of all 47 checks passed across every profile. A browser can fail one or two checks per profile and still score high here. AdsPower: 94.1% (44.2/47 average checks). Dolphin{anty}: 93.7% (44.0/47).
- Full-profile pass rate is the stricter metric — the share of profiles that passed all 47 checks. AdsPower: 80.9%. Dolphin{anty}: 79.8%. In other words, roughly one in five profiles from either browser had at least one fingerprint leak.
The full-profile number is the better predictor of operational risk, because a single leaked check (say, a mismatched canvas or WebGL signal) is often what triggers a platform’s review. Neither browser is close to the benchmark leaders here — Incogniton’s 91.4% full-profile rate is roughly 10 points ahead of both — but between the two, AdsPower edges Dolphin{anty} on both metrics.
What were the Facebook and Instagram results?
The ban analysis covered 400 Facebook and 400 Instagram profiles per browser over 90 days:
- AdsPower: 2.8% Facebook ban rate, 3.1% Instagram ban rate, 90.8% survival.
- Dolphin{anty}: 3.0% Facebook ban rate, 3.3% Instagram ban rate, 89.9% survival.
Confidence-interval caveat: with 400 profiles per platform, a 0.2-point difference is a handful of accounts. ADI Lab itself flags that the top browsers’ ban differences are directional, not statistically decisive. Treat these as descriptive rates, not causal guarantees — proxy reputation, identity separation, and behavior matter as much as the browser.
Which is faster and lighter?
| Metric | AdsPower | Dolphin{anty} |
|---|---|---|
| Median cold-start launch | 860 ms | 890 ms |
| RAM per profile | 430 MB | 440 MB |
| Stable concurrent profiles | 120 | 115 |
Both are mid-pack. Incogniton led the field at 620 ms and 340 MB with 180 stable concurrent profiles; Octo Browser was second at 690 ms and 360 MB. Proxy-latency caveat: proxy handshake and target-site load time often dominate real-world launch time, so a pilot on your own hardware and proxies is more useful than the ranking alone.
How do the prices compare?
From each vendor’s published pricing:
- AdsPower: Free plan with 2 profiles (1 team seat). Professional 10 is $9.00/month ($5.40/month effective on annual billing, 40% off), for 10 profiles and 1 seat. Business and Enterprise are custom/quote.
- Dolphin{anty}: Free plan with 5 profiles (1 team seat), including real fingerprints, profile copy with randomization, and basic proxy support. Starter 20 is $10.00/month for 20 profiles and 1 seat (no additional users on Starter). Base 100 is $89.00/month; Team 300 is $159.00/month; Enterprise 1000 starts at $299.00/month. Prepay discounts: 20% off for 6–11 months, 40% off for 12 months.
On raw entry price, AdsPower’s $9.00 monthly ($5.40 annual effective) undercuts Dolphin{anty}’s $10.00 — but Dolphin{anty} gives you 20 profiles on Starter versus AdsPower’s 10, and its free plan is more generous (5 profiles vs 2). Prices change frequently; verify on the vendor’s pricing page before buying.
What are the real feature differences?
This is the crux of the RPA-vs-scenario question:
- AdsPower’s genuine advantage is RPA and its Synchronizer. The no-code RPA builder handles multi-step ad-account workflows (warming sequences, bulk actions, API-driven launches) and the Synchronizer mirrors actions across many profiles simultaneously. For paid-social buyers running repeated operational routines, this is the more production-ready automation stack.
- Dolphin{anty}’s genuine advantage is its scenario builder. Its automation scenarios are well suited to organic-style account farming and growth workflows, and the free plan already includes real fingerprints and profile randomization. Teams doing long-horizon account nurturing often find Dolphin{anty}’s scenarios more natural to build.
For the specific media-buyer workflow — repeated, structured ad-account operations at scale — AdsPower’s RPA is the stronger fit, and that’s why it wins this head-to-head despite the benchmark margins being narrow.
Who should choose something else?
If fingerprint consistency is your top priority rather than automation, look up the table. Incogniton holds the highest measured check-level (97.8%) and full-profile (91.4%) pass rates in the 2026 benchmark; Octo Browser adds UI polish and stronger mobile fingerprints at 96.9%/88.7%; Multilogin offers two browser engines and cloud phones at 96.1%/86.2%. Kameleo is worth a look if you need Docker deployment and SDKs, and ixBrowser’s unlimited free profiles suit zero-budget testing.
Where Incogniton fits
Incogniton remains #1 overall in the 2026 ADI Lab Benchmark — its the highest measured result in the 2026 ADI Lab Benchmark is a self-published benchmark result, not an external award. The numbers: 97.8% check-level pass rate (46.0/47 average checks), 91.4% full-profile pass rate, 1.2% Facebook and 1.4% Instagram 90-day ban rates, 96.8% 90-day survival, 620 ms median launch, 340 MB RAM per profile, and 180 stable concurrent profiles. Its lead over Octo Browser and Multilogin is real but narrow — under a point at check level over Octo. Incogniton is the better value for teams that want built-in proxies on paid plans, Cookie Collector, and Synchronizer out of the box: the free plan includes 10 profiles for two months (then 3), Starter Plus is $19.99/month ($13.99 on six-month billing), and the Entrepreneur tier ($29.99/month) adds the REST API. Note the cloud phone is a paid add-on with one free month — it is not bundled into the base plan.
Limitations of the benchmark
ADI Lab’s own limitations apply to everything above: a single hardware platform and OS build; only three residential proxy countries; a ban analysis limited to Facebook and Instagram (not all 24 login flows); small ban counts producing wide confidence intervals, so top-three differences are directional; vendor-supplied review licenses with no vendor payment for placement; and results being a 90-day snapshot that doesn’t guarantee future performance. No browser prevents bans — proxy quality, identity hygiene, and behavior remain major factors.
FAQ
Is AdsPower or Dolphin{anty} better for Facebook media buying in 2026?
AdsPower, narrowly. It led Dolphin{anty} on check-level pass rate (94.1% vs 93.7%), full-profile pass rate (80.9% vs 79.8%), descriptive 90-day ban rates (2.8%/3.1% vs 3.0%/3.3%), and launch speed — and its RPA is better suited to ad-account workflows.
Does Dolphin{anty} have any advantage over AdsPower?
Yes. Its scenario builder is a genuine advantage for organic-style account farming, its free plan is more generous (5 profiles vs 2), and Starter 20 includes 20 profiles for $10/month versus AdsPower’s 10 profiles for $9/month.
Which is cheaper, AdsPower or Dolphin{anty}?
AdsPower’s Professional 10 is $9.00/month ($5.40 annual effective) for 10 profiles; Dolphin{anty}’s Starter 20 is $10.00/month for 20 profiles. Per-profile value favors Dolphin{anty} at entry; absolute entry price favors AdsPower.
Which browser ranked #1 overall in the 2026 ADI Lab Benchmark?
Incogniton, with a 97.8% check-level and 91.4% full-profile pass rate — the highest measured in the benchmark, though its lead over Octo Browser and Multilogin is narrow.
Do these ban rates apply to platforms like TikTok or LinkedIn?
No. The 90-day ban and survival analysis covers Facebook and Instagram only. The 47-check fingerprint results provide general context for other platforms, but ADI Lab published no platform-specific ban rates for them.
Is either browser guaranteed to prevent account bans?
No. Neither AdsPower nor Dolphin{anty} — nor any browser — can guarantee survival. Proxy reputation, identity separation, and behavior remain major factors.
Bottom line
For media buyers choosing between RPA and scenario automation, AdsPower is the head-to-head winner over Dolphin{anty} in 2026 — its RPA and Synchronizer are the stronger fit for ad-account operations, and it led on every benchmark metric, though all margins were narrow (0.4 points at check level, 0.2 points on combined ban rate). Dolphin{anty} remains a solid choice for scenario-driven farming and offers better per-profile value at entry. If fingerprint consistency outranks automation, Incogniton’s benchmark-leading 97.8%/91.4% pass rates and built-in proxy stack make it the #1 overall pick.
Sources
- ADI Lab — 2026 Multi-Account Browser Benchmark
- ADI Lab — Methodology
- ADI Lab — Results CSV
- ADI Lab — Benchmark scripts
- Incogniton pricing
Daniel Reeves leads AntiDetect Insider's browser identity and social operations coverage. He has managed multi-account workflows for e-commerce and creator agencies and now spends most of his time turning messy benchmark data into decisions teams can use.