AI Browser Automation Cost Analysis (Part 2): Proxy and Compute Optimization

Tokens dominate, but proxy and compute also have room for optimization. Right-sized proxy selection, concurrency strategy, and instance type matching.

16Yun Engineering TeamMay 2, 20261 min read

Proxy Optimization

Proxy cost is small, but wrong proxy selection increases failure rates, which increases token costs (retries need more LLM calls).

Proxy Selection Decision Tree

Target site has anti-bot?
├── No → Datacenter proxy (cheapest)
├── Yes, mild → Crawler Proxy (tunnel)
└── Yes, strict (Turnstile) → Residential/Dedicated + GeoIP

Instance Type Selection

Browsers are memory-intensive, not CPU-intensive:

CloudInstancevCPURAMMonthly (on-demand)
AWSr6i.large216GB~$70
AWSr6i.xlarge432GB~$140
GCPn2-highmem-2216GB~$60

Pod Density

A 16GB instance can run approximately:

  • 4-6 simple page browser instances
  • 2-3 complex SPA instances
  • 1-2 multi-tab instances

Beyond this, GC and OOM increase failure rates, raising total cost.

Cost Curve at Scale

Daily TasksToken (Gemini Flash)ProxyComputeTotal
1,000$9$0.10$1.50~$11
10,000$90$1.00$15~$106
100,000$900$10$150~$1,060
1,000,000$9,000$100$1,500~$10,600

Token cost is always dominant and grows linearly. Proxy and compute can be amortized at scale. Tokens cannot.

Summary

  1. Don't over-proxy — match proxy type to target site protection level
  2. Match instance type — use high-memory-ratio instances
  3. Evaluate warm pools before using — not needed for all scenarios
  4. No scale economy on tokens — token cost is linear

Need an enterprise proxy plan?

We can tailor architecture to your target domains, concurrency, and reliability goals.