published vendor figures position Dolphin Anty and AdsPower as close competitors on price and profile capacity, but the numbers measure different things and are not directly comparable. Dolphin Anty's site advertises a free tier of 10 profiles and a paid base near USD 89 for 100 profiles. AdsPower's site advertises a free tier of 2 profiles and a paid base near USD 30 for 10 profiles. Neither vendor publishes audited performance benchmarks, so any "versus" verdict rests on packaging claims, not independent measurement.
Mechanism: why published vendor figures diverge
Antidetect browser vendors publish figures that describe their own billing architecture, not a shared measurement standard. That single fact explains most of the apparent disagreement between Dolphin Anty's and AdsPower's published numbers.
Dolphin Anty prices primarily by profile count. Its public pricing page lists tiers where the monthly fee scales with the number of browser profiles a user can create. The core unit is a profile slot, and the vendor bundles team seats and basic automation into higher tiers.
AdsPower prices primarily by a profile-slot base plus metered add-ons. Its public pricing page lists a low-cost entry tier, then charges separately for additional team members and for automation minutes or API access. The base number looks smaller because more of the cost sits outside the headline figure.
This is the mechanism to understand: a profile slot is a software construct. It is a container holding cookies, fingerprints, proxies, and local storage. Vendors can define slot limits differently, count deleted profiles differently, and throttle concurrency differently. A "100 profiles" claim from one vendor does not guarantee the same usable capacity as "100 profiles" from another.
The second mechanism is fingerprint coverage claims. Both vendors publish lists of parameters they spoof or mask, such as canvas, WebGL, audio context, fonts, and timezone. Published lists describe intent, not resistance to detection. No vendor figure states a measured detection rate against a named fingerprinting service.
Plain language: the numbers tell you how each company packages its product, not which product hides you better.
Quantified context: what the published figures actually show
Published vendor figures cluster into four categories: free-tier size, entry price, profile ceiling, and team-seat allowances. Comparing those categories side by side is the only honest way to use the numbers.
| Published figure | Dolphin Anty (vendor site) | AdsPower (vendor site) | Comparability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free tier profiles | 10 | 2 | Directly comparable as stated limits |
| Entry paid price | About USD 89 per month | About USD 30 per month | Not comparable; tier contents differ |
| Profile ceiling on entry tier | 100 | 10 | Not comparable; slot definitions differ |
| Team seats included | Varies by tier | Often metered separately | Partially comparable |
| Automation/API access | Bundled at higher tiers | Metered add-on | Not comparable |
| Published detection benchmark | None | None | Neither publishes one |
Read the table as packaging data. Dolphin Anty's larger free tier and higher entry price suggest a product aimed at users who already run many profiles. AdsPower's low entry price suggests a product designed to onboard small operators cheaply, then meter growth. Both readings are inferences from pricing structure, not vendor performance claims.
A per-profile cost calculation shows the divergence. Dolphin Anty's entry tier works out to roughly USD 0.89 per profile per month at 100 profiles. AdsPower's entry tier works out to roughly USD 3.00 per profile per month at 10 profiles. The per-unit gap shrinks or reverses at higher tiers, which is exactly why headline prices mislead.
Neither vendor publishes a fingerprint-consistency score, a proxy-success rate, or a session-isolation metric. Those are the numbers that would actually settle a comparison, and they are absent from both sites.
Edge cases: where the published figures break down
The published figures break down in several predictable situations. Each one matters more than the headline price.
Free-tier exhaustion. A 10-profile free tier and a 2-profile free tier both disappear once you add real workloads. A single social media operator managing five accounts across two platforms can exceed 10 profiles within a week. The free tier is a trial, not a capacity plan.
Concurrency limits. Vendors often cap how many profiles can run simultaneously, separate from how many can exist. Published pricing pages frequently omit this cap. A user who needs 20 simultaneous sessions may find the profile count irrelevant.
Team-seat metering. AdsPower's separate seat pricing means a three-person team pays more than the headline. Dolphin Anty bundles seats unevenly across tiers. Comparing single-user prices understates team costs for one vendor and overstates them for the other.
Add-on costs. Automation, API calls, and proxy bundles sit outside both headline prices. Proxy cost alone often exceeds the browser subscription. Neither vendor's published figure includes proxy spend, so total cost of ownership diverges from the advertised number.
Red-flag warnings when reading antidetect vendor figures:
Any vendor claim of "undetectable" or "100% bypass" is marketing language with no published test protocol behind it. A low headline price that excludes seats, automation, or proxies understates real monthly cost. Free-tier profile counts say nothing about concurrency, storage, or fingerprint quality. Profile-count comparisons across vendors assume identical slot definitions, which is usually false. Absence of a published detection benchmark means no vendor figure can rank the two products on stealth.
The counterintuitive detail: a larger free tier can signal weaker paid-tier economics, because the vendor must convert free users at a higher price to sustain the giveaway. Dolphin Anty's 10-profile free tier and higher entry price fit that pattern. AdsPower's thin free tier and low entry price fit the opposite pattern. Neither signal proves product quality.
Misconceptions: what the published figures do not tell you
The most common misconception is that a higher profile count means a more capable browser. Profile count is a billing container. Capability depends on fingerprint rendering, proxy handling, and session isolation, none of which appear in published vendor figures.
The second misconception is that price tracks stealth quality. There is no published evidence linking subscription tier to detection resistance. A USD 30 plan and a USD 89 plan may use identical fingerprint engines, with the price difference reflecting seat count, support, or margin.
The third misconception is that the rating-antidetect-browser.com page resolves the question. A third-party rating page is not a primary source. If it reproduces vendor figures, it carries the same limitations. You should verify every number against the vendor's own pricing page at the time of purchase, because tiers change.
The fourth misconception is that free-tier size predicts paid-tier value. A generous free tier often exists to seed adoption, and the paid conversion price is set to recover that cost. AdsPower's smaller free tier and lower entry price are consistent with a different funnel, not a weaker product.
The fifth misconception is that "published vendor figures" means verified figures. Vendors publish what they choose to publish. No independent body audits antidetect browser pricing claims or performance claims. Treat every figure as a self-report.
Plain language: a vendor's own numbers describe its pricing strategy and nothing about how well it hides a browser.
Practical actions: how to use the figures without being misled
Use published vendor figures as a starting filter, then test the variables they omit. The steps below convert marketing numbers into usable decision inputs.
Step one: normalize to cost per concurrent session. Divide the monthly price by the concurrency cap, not the profile count. If a vendor does not publish a concurrency cap, ask support in writing before purchase.
Step two: add seats and automation to the headline. Build a total monthly figure that includes team seats, API or automation minutes, and proxy spend. Compare that total across vendors, not the advertised base.
Step three: test fingerprint consistency yourself. Create identical profiles on each platform, run them against the same fingerprint-checking service, and record the reported parameters over several sessions. Repeated inconsistencies matter more than any single reading.
Step four: test proxy behavior under load. Run your actual proxy pool through each browser and measure failure rates and latency. Vendor figures say nothing about proxy compatibility.
Step five: set a threshold for switching. If your workload needs more than 10 concurrent profiles, the free tiers are irrelevant and the comparison should be on paid tiers with seats and automation included. If it needs fewer than 10, Dolphin Anty's published free tier covers more of your use case at zero cost.
Step six: re-verify at purchase. Pricing pages change. Capture the vendor page on the day you buy and keep it, because published figures are your only contractual reference.
The reconciliation point: Dolphin Anty's published figures favor users who need many profiles and will pay more upfront. AdsPower's published figures favor users who want a low entry cost and will meter growth. Neither set of figures establishes a stealth advantage.
Limitations: what published vendor figures cannot establish
Published vendor figures are self-reported marketing data. They are not audited, not standardized across vendors, and not performance measurements. Any comparison built only on them is a comparison of packaging.
The specific limits are worth stating plainly. Profile-count definitions differ, so cross-vendor counts are not equivalent. Concurrency caps are often unpublished. Fingerprint quality is not quantified by either vendor. Detection resistance has no published benchmark from either company. Team-seat and automation costs sit outside headline prices. Proxy costs sit outside both vendors' figures entirely.
The rating-antidetect-browser.com page inherits all of these limits if it relies on vendor numbers. A rating page can organize figures, but it cannot create measurement where none exists. The honest reading is that Dolphin Anty and AdsPower publish different packaging, and packaging alone cannot rank them on the one thing that matters, which is how well each browser protects a profile from fingerprinting.
What would settle the question: a published, reproducible test protocol run against a named fingerprinting service, with results reported per browser version and per proxy configuration. Neither vendor publishes that. Until one does, published vendor figures support only cost and capacity planning, not stealth claims.
This article is general educational information about how to read vendor pricing and capacity figures. It is not a recommendation to purchase either product, and it makes no promise about detection outcomes or account safety. Verify current pricing and terms directly with each vendor before buying, and consult a qualified professional for advice specific to your situation.