CyberChef vs BrowserUtils

Quick comparison

Checked November 14, 2026

Where CyberChef is better

• Chains operations into recipes, so a multi-step decode (Base64 → gunzip → JSON) runs in one place, and the recipe and input can be shared as one URL.
• About 500 operations, including compression, forensics, public-key and data-extraction operations that BrowserUtils has no equivalent for.
• 'Magic' tries to work out how your data is encoded and suggests the operations to decode it. You can also set breakpoints and step through a recipe one operation at a time.
• Loads files of up to about 2 GB, and you can download the whole app as one file to run on an offline or air-gapped machine. Open source under Apache 2.0.

Where BrowserUtils is better

• Open the tool and paste: the Base64, hash or URL-encode page does the one job, with no operations to find and drag into a recipe first.
• Loads only the tool you open. CyberChef downloads its whole app before anything runs: one 13.7 MB JavaScript file, about 4 MB compressed.
• Each tool has its own page and URL with an explanation and FAQs, so a link like /tools/base64-encode-decode/ makes sense on its own in docs or chat.
• Covers web-development jobs CyberChef doesn't aim at, such as JSON-to-TypeScript types, CSS generators, cron explainers and Dockerfile and nginx config generators.

Tools on both