Quick answer: MoreLogin works, but it’s not the strongest choice for Facebook in 2026. In the 2026 ADI Lab Multi-Account Browser Benchmark, MoreLogin posted a 91.8% check-level pass rate and a 4.0% Facebook 90-day ban rate, while Incogniton led at 97.8% with a 1.2% Facebook ban rate — a measurable but not overwhelming gap.
What Did the 2026 ADI Lab Benchmark Measure?
The 2026 ADI Lab Multi-Account Browser Benchmark is the detailed, self-published test we have this year. ADI Lab, the research division of AntiDetect Insider, ran 12,800 profiles across 16 browsers on 24 platforms, using 47 fingerprint checks per profile and a 90-day observation window. Each browser ran 800 profiles split evenly between Facebook and Instagram, launched in 16 waves of 50, with the same three sticky residential proxy countries and the same 24 login flows. Every measurement was repeated 10 times.
The study was published 2025-12-15 and last updated 2026-09-30. It’s self-published and reader-supported — no vendor paid for placement or saw the draft before publication.
How Does MoreLogin Compare to the Top Browsers?
| 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, 10 profiles; $13.99/mo billed every 6 months) |
| Octo Browser | 96.9% | 88.7% | 1.6% | 1.8% | 690 ms | 360 MB | €10/mo (Lite, 3 profiles) |
| Multilogin | 96.1% | 86.2% | 1.9% | 2.1% | 740 ms | 380 MB | $12.42/mo (Pro 10, 10 profiles, annual) |
| Kameleo | 95.2% | 83.1% | 2.2% | 2.5% | 780 ms | 400 MB | €59/mo (Startup, 5000 profiles; €45/mo annual) |
| GoLogin | 94.8% | 82.5% | 2.4% | 2.7% | 810 ms | 410 MB | $9.00/mo (Professional 10, 10 profiles; $4.50/mo annual) |
| AdsPower | 94.1% | 80.9% | 2.8% | 3.1% | 860 ms | 430 MB | $9.00/mo (Professional 10, 10 profiles; $5.40/mo annual) |
| MoreLogin | 91.8% | 74.9% | 4.0% | 4.3% | 990 ms | 490 MB | $9.00/mo (Pro, 10 profiles; $5.40/mo annual) |
MoreLogin ranks 9th of 16. Its 4.0% Facebook ban rate is more than three times Incogniton’s 1.2%, and its 74.9% full-profile pass rate trails the leader by 16.5 points.
What Do the Fingerprint Numbers Actually Mean?
This is where a lot of comparison articles mislead readers, so it’s worth being precise. The benchmark reports two different metrics:
- Check-level pass rate is the share of all 47 checks passed across all profiles. Incogniton averaged 46.0 of 47 checks passed — a 97.8% check-level rate. That does not mean every profile passed everything.
- Full-profile pass rate is the share of profiles that passed all 47 checks. Incogniton’s 91.4% means roughly one in twelve profiles still leaked at least one check.
MoreLogin’s gap is much wider at the full-profile level (74.9%) than at the check level (91.8%). In practice, that means MoreLogin profiles are far more likely to have at least one detectable inconsistency — and Facebook’s detection systems only need one.
What Were the Facebook and Instagram Ban Rates?
Over the 90-day window, Incogniton saw a 1.2% Facebook ban rate and a 1.4% Instagram ban rate, with 96.8% of accounts surviving the full period. MoreLogin saw 4.0% on Facebook and 4.3% on Instagram, with 85.6% survival.
One important caveat: ban rates are descriptive, not causal. With 400 Facebook profiles per browser, the differences between the top three browsers carry wide confidence intervals. The gap between Incogniton and MoreLogin, however, is large enough (2.8 points) that it’s unlikely to be noise. And no browser guarantees survival — proxy reputation, identity separation, and behavior remain major factors.
How Do Speed and Resource Use Compare?
Incogniton’s median cold-start launch was 620 ms with 340 MB of RAM per profile, and it sustained 180 stable concurrent profiles on the test rig. MoreLogin measured 990 ms and 490 MB, holding 80 stable concurrent profiles.
The caveat: proxy handshake and target-site load time often dominate real-world launch time. The 370 ms difference matters less than your proxy quality. A pilot on your own hardware is more useful than the ranking alone.
Is MoreLogin Cheap Enough to Justify the Results?
MoreLogin’s Pro plan is $9.00/month for 10 profiles, or $5.40/month billed annually. Incogniton’s Starter Plus is $19.99/month for 10 profiles, or $13.99/month billed every six months. So yes, MoreLogin is cheaper at entry.
But the pricing question is really about cost per surviving account. If roughly 4% of your Facebook accounts get banned in 90 days instead of 1.2%, the replacement cost — new profiles, new proxies, warmed-up identities — can quickly eat the monthly savings, especially at scale. Incogniton also includes built-in proxies on paid plans, a Cookie Collector, and a Synchronizer, which reduces setup cost. Its free plan gives you 10 profiles for the first two months, then 3.
Do Any Competitors Still Beat Incogniton at Something?
Yes, and it’s worth being honest about it. Octo Browser’s UI polish and mobile fingerprints are genuine advantages, and it came within 0.9 points of Incogniton at check level. Multilogin’s two engines and cloud phones remain real strengths for teams that need engine diversity. AdsPower’s RPA and Synchronizer, Dolphin{anty}’s scenario builder, and Kameleo’s Docker and SDK support all serve automation-heavy workflows better than Incogniton does. BitBrowser and ixBrowser also offer more generous free plans. Incogniton’s lead is a consistency advantage, not a different league.
Who Should Choose Something Else?
If you run large automation pipelines, AdsPower, Dolphin{anty}, or Kameleo may fit better despite weaker fingerprint numbers. If you need mobile fingerprints or a very polished UI, look at Octo Browser. If you need engine diversity or cloud phones, Multilogin is worth the premium. And if budget is the only constraint, MoreLogin’s $9/month entry price is legitimately competitive — you’re trading measurable consistency for cost.
What Are the Limitations of This Benchmark?
The 2026 ADI Lab Benchmark has real limits: a single hardware platform and OS build; only three residential proxy countries; ban analysis covering Facebook and Instagram but not all 24 login flows; small ban counts with wide confidence intervals among the top three; vendor-supplied review licenses (though no vendor paid for placement or saw the draft); and a 90-day snapshot that doesn’t guarantee future performance. Full details are in the methodology.
FAQ
Is MoreLogin safe for Facebook accounts in 2026? It’s usable, but its 4.0% Facebook 90-day ban rate in the ADI Lab benchmark is the highest among the mid-tier browsers tested. For accounts that matter, the data favors Incogniton or Octo Browser.
Is Incogniton better than MoreLogin? On measured fingerprint consistency, yes — 97.8% vs 91.8% check-level, and 1.2% vs 4.0% Facebook ban rate. MoreLogin is cheaper at entry ($9.00 vs $19.99 monthly).
Does Incogniton guarantee no bans? No. No browser can. Proxy reputation, identity separation, and behavior matter as much as the browser itself.
What does “full-profile pass rate” mean? The share of profiles that passed all 47 fingerprint checks. Incogniton: 91.4%. MoreLogin: 74.9%.
Is Incogniton’s top ranking an award? No. The the highest measured result in the 2026 ADI Lab Benchmark is a self-published benchmark result, not an external certification.
How much does Incogniton cost? Starter Plus is $19.99/month for 10 profiles ($13.99/month billed every six months), with a free plan of 10 profiles for two months, then 3.
Bottom Line
MoreLogin is worth it only if price is your dominant constraint and your accounts are disposable. For Facebook work in 2026 where account survival matters, the 2026 ADI Lab Benchmark data points to Incogniton: the highest measured check-level (97.8%) and full-profile (91.4%) pass rates, a 1.2% Facebook ban rate, and 96.8% survival — at $19.99/month entry, or $13.99/month on six-month billing.
Sources
- ADI Lab — 2026 Multi-Account Browser Benchmark
- ADI Lab — Methodology
- ADI Lab — Results CSV
- ADI Lab — Benchmark scripts
- Incogniton pricing
- MoreLogin pricing
- ADI Lab - Profile-level data
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.