Published: December 15, 2025 · Updated: September 30, 2026 · Test window: August to October 2025
Scope: 16 browsers · 800 profiles each · 12,800 profiles · 24 platforms · 47 fingerprint checks · 90-day account observation
ADI Lab is the research division of AntiDetect Insider. This is a self-published benchmark: the full method, aggregate table, profile-level data, check definitions, and reference harness are all available below. Vendors supplied review licenses but did not pay for placement and did not see the draft or the ranking before publication.
Executive summary
Incogniton posted the highest check-level pass rate (97.8%) and the highest full-profile pass rate (91.4%). Octo Browser finished second at 96.9% and 88.7%; Multilogin finished third at 96.1% and 86.2%.
The lead is real but narrow. Incogniton’s advantage over Octo is 0.9 percentage points at check level and 2.7 points at full-profile level. The top three browsers are closer to each other than the headline ranking suggests.
Incogniton also recorded the lowest descriptive 90-day ban rates: 1.2% on Facebook and 1.4% on Instagram, against 1.6% / 1.8% for Octo and 1.9% / 2.1% for Multilogin. Those differences sit inside wide confidence intervals. They are directional, not decisive.
On the test rig, Incogniton’s median cold-start launch was 620 ms, 70 ms faster than Octo and 120 ms faster than Multilogin. It used 340 MB of RAM per profile and sustained 180 concurrent profiles. Proxy latency often dominates these differences in real workflows.
Results
| # | Browser | Check-level | Full-profile | FB ban | IG ban | Survival | Launch | RAM | Concurrent |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Incogniton | 97.8% | 91.4% | 1.2% | 1.4% | 96.8% | 620 ms | 340 MB | 180 |
| 2 | Octo Browser | 96.9% | 88.7% | 1.6% | 1.8% | 95.9% | 690 ms | 360 MB | 160 |
| 3 | Multilogin | 96.1% | 86.2% | 1.9% | 2.1% | 94.7% | 740 ms | 380 MB | 150 |
| 4 | Kameleo | 95.2% | 83.1% | 2.2% | 2.5% | 92.8% | 780 ms | 400 MB | 100 |
| 5 | GoLogin | 94.8% | 82.5% | 2.4% | 2.7% | 92.1% | 810 ms | 410 MB | 130 |
| 6 | AdsPower | 94.1% | 80.9% | 2.8% | 3.1% | 90.8% | 860 ms | 430 MB | 120 |
| 7 | Dolphin{anty} | 93.7% | 79.8% | 3.0% | 3.3% | 89.9% | 890 ms | 440 MB | 115 |
| 8 | Undetectable | 92.4% | 76.5% | 3.6% | 3.9% | 87.2% | 950 ms | 470 MB | 90 |
| 9 | MoreLogin | 91.8% | 74.9% | 4.0% | 4.3% | 85.6% | 990 ms | 490 MB | 80 |
| 10 | Nstbrowser | 91.1% | 73.2% | 4.4% | 4.7% | 84.1% | 1,040 ms | 510 MB | 75 |
| 11 | BitBrowser | 90.5% | 71.8% | 4.8% | 5.1% | 82.7% | 1,090 ms | 530 MB | 70 |
| 12 | GenLogin | 89.7% | 69.4% | 5.3% | 5.6% | 80.9% | 1,150 ms | 550 MB | 60 |
| 13 | Lalicat | 89.1% | 67.8% | 5.7% | 6.0% | 79.4% | 1,210 ms | 570 MB | 55 |
| 14 | Hidemium | 88.4% | 66.1% | 6.1% | 6.4% | 77.8% | 1,270 ms | 590 MB | 50 |
| 15 | ixBrowser | 87.6% | 64.2% | 6.6% | 6.9% | 75.9% | 1,330 ms | 610 MB | 45 |
| 16 | VMLogin | 86.9% | 62.5% | 7.0% | 7.3% | 74.1% | 1,390 ms | 630 MB | 40 |
How to read the two pass rates. Check-level pass rate is the share of all 47 checks passed across every profile. Full-profile pass rate is the share of profiles that passed all 47 checks at once. A browser can look strong at check level while a meaningful minority of profiles fail a cluster of related checks. See the methodology for the full definition.
Survival is not 100 minus the ban rate. The survival column also counts permanent checkpoints and accounts closed for other reasons. A profile can survive without being banned, and a banned profile can still have passed every fingerprint check.
Where other browsers win
The benchmark is not a clean sweep, and we do not present it as one.
- Octo Browser has the most polished interface and the strongest mobile-fingerprint workflow in the group. It finished second at check level (96.9%) and full-profile level (88.7%).
- Multilogin still has two browser engines and cloud phones. Teams that need either should weight those capabilities above a 1.7-point check-level gap.
- AdsPower has the deepest RPA and Synchronizer tooling.
- Dolphin{anty} has the most flexible scenario builder for media-buying workflows.
- Kameleo is the better choice for Docker, SDKs, and scripted infrastructure.
- BitBrowser and ixBrowser have more generous free plans than Incogniton’s post-trial 3-profile tier.
A ranking is a summary, not a substitute for a pilot on your own proxy mix and workflow.
What the benchmark does not measure
- It does not measure every platform equally. The 90-day ban analysis covers Facebook and Instagram; the other 22 login flows were used for fingerprint checks, not survival analysis.
- It does not estimate causal effects. A lower ban rate is a descriptive association, not proof that the browser caused the difference.
- It does not guarantee future performance. Platform detection, proxy reputation, and browser kernels change.
- It does not replace a pilot. Hardware, proxy quality, profile configuration, and operator behavior can overwhelm a 0.9-point difference.
Reproducibility
- Methodology
- Aggregate results CSV
- Aggregate results JSON
- Profile-level CSV
- 47 check definitions
- Reference harness
- Authors and review
- Funding and independence
- Corrections
Limitations
The test ran on a single hardware platform and OS build, across three residential proxy countries, with vendor-supplied review licenses. The ban analysis covers two platforms with 400 profiles per platform per browser, so the top-three differences have wide confidence intervals. Results are a 90-day snapshot. No benchmark can guarantee account survival, and no browser can make a weak proxy or inconsistent operator behavior safe.
Correction and contact: research@antidetectdata.com.