Chrome’s Auto Browse Agent: A Reality Check on Browser Automation in 2026

Google’s Auto Browse agent is now rolling out to millions of Chrome users. We put it through real-world tests. The results are… instructive.

The Core Insight

Ars Technica’s comprehensive testing reveals a sobering truth: AI browser agents are still fundamentally unreliable for autonomous operation. Auto Browse scored a 6.5/10 average across practical tasks—capable of impressive feats but equally capable of spectacular failures.

The most damning finding? Auto Browse struggles with Google’s own products. It couldn’t navigate YouTube Music’s interface, entered spreadsheet data incorrectly in Google Sheets, and failed to properly search Gmail. If Google’s agent can’t handle Google’s services, that tells us where we are in the browser automation journey.

Why This Matters

The Agent Autonomy Illusion

The testing methodology was generous—using Google’s Pro model, Google-native services where available, and clear prompts. Despite these advantages, Auto Browse required constant supervision: re-prompting, nudging to continue, and adapting requests after failures.

The reviewer’s conclusion cuts to the heart: “You have to watch it… it’s more like babysitting an easily distracted robot.” This isn’t automation—it’s supervised assistance with an excellent UI.

Platform-Specific Failures Are Revealing

Auto Browse couldn’t use arrow keys (intentionally excluded as “unnecessary for productivity”). It failed at hover menus. It stopped tasks early because it interpreted prompts too literally. These aren’t bugs—they’re design constraints revealing how far we are from general-purpose browser automation.

The 2048 game test is particularly illustrative: the agent grasped the rules and played competently, but stopped when it couldn’t make a merge—even though human players would simply move and set up the next opportunity. AI agents still lack the common-sense flexibility humans bring to ambiguous situations.

Key Takeaways

• Scores ranged from 1/10 to 10/10: Performance is wildly inconsistent across task types
• Best performance: Structured data entry tasks like power plan comparison (10/10)
• Worst performance: Creative synthesis tasks like scanning emails for patterns (1/10)
• Time monitoring impossible: Like OpenAI’s Atlas, Auto Browse refuses to watch pages over extended periods
• Confirmation fatigue: Security constraints require constant human approval for certain actions
• Google can’t use Google: The irony of failing on YouTube Music, Sheets, and Gmail isn’t lost on anyone

Looking Ahead

The Auto Browse rollout represents an interesting bet from Google: exposing millions of users to the current state of browser automation while it’s still rough. This could accelerate feedback and improvement—or generate a wave of frustration with half-baked AI promises.

For developers and power users, the takeaway is clear: browser agents are useful for specific, well-structured tasks with clear success criteria. Complex workflows requiring judgment, adaptation, or long-term monitoring remain firmly in human territory.

The most promising use cases are narrow: form filling, comparison shopping, data extraction from structured sources. The dream of “give it a goal and walk away” remains exactly that—a dream.

We’re perhaps 2-3 years from browser agents you can genuinely trust unsupervised. Until then, expect to babysit your robots.

Based on analysis of We let Chrome’s Auto Browse agent surf the web for us