AntBrowser Alternatives: What a Second Operator Costs

Every antidetect vendor sells the same rough thing: an isolated browser profile with a controllable fingerprint and a proxy slot. What differs is the number they multiply to reach your invoice. Some multiply profiles. Some multiply people. One multiplies how often you open a profile. A couple refuse to sell you people at all and make you buy profiles instead.

That choice of denominator decides who the product is cheap for, and it does so much more sharply than any fingerprint feature. A vendor that charges per profile is nearly free for a big team on few profiles and brutal for one person on thousands. A vendor that charges per seat is the reverse. Nobody publishes a chart of this because the chart embarrasses roughly half the market.

Two shapes matter and they pull in opposite directions. The first is one operator with a very large profile count, which is the bulk-scale case: a single person running 1,000 accounts through scripts. We modelled that shape in detail against MuLogin's ladder in MuLogin Alternatives, where the interesting crossover is the point at which per-profile pricing stops beating per-seat pricing as profile counts climb into four figures.

This post deliberately models the other shape, and the two are not interchangeable. Here the profile count is modest, 25 to 500, and the operator count is the thing that grows: a three-person affiliate team, two VAs plus an owner, a small agency pod. At that shape the profile line on your invoice is close to noise and the seat line is the entire decision. Several vendors that look mid-priced on a single-user comparison become the most expensive option in the category the instant a third person needs a login, and two vendors that look unremarkable become almost free. If your situation is one person and a four-figure profile count, read the MuLogin piece instead; the ranking there comes out differently on purpose.

AntBrowser sits at an unusual spot on this axis, and it is worth saying plainly before the alternatives: on price alone, for a small team, AntBrowser is very hard to beat. This is not a rescue mission. The reasons to look elsewhere are specific and they are mostly not about money.

Start with a domain note, because it trips people up. The product now lives at antbrowser.pro. A request to antbrowser.com returns a 302 redirect to antbrowser.pro, which we confirmed with a status check on 9 October 2026, and antbrowser.net does not resolve at all: a nameserver lookup returns a non-existent domain. If you find pricing on a .net mirror, it is a copy somebody else is hosting.

AntBrowser's pricing page does not publish a plan table in the normal sense. It publishes a profile-count dropdown and computes the price in the browser. The computation is sitting in the page source, and it is this:

// antbrowser.pro/en/, inline handler on #profile_count_2, read 2026-10-09
var custom_price = {"2":4,"10":12};
if (custom_price && custom_price[$(this).val()]) {
  var price = Math.round(custom_price[$(this).val()]);
} else {
  var price = Math.round(Number.parseInt("15") + Number.parseInt($(this).val()) * Number.parseFloat('0.07'), 2);
}
var discount = Number.parseInt($(active).attr('data-discount')) + Number.parseInt("0");
if (discount > 60) discount = 60;
var final_price = Math.round(price * (100 - discount) / 100, 2);
var total_price = interval * final_price;

In words: a Pro subscription costs 15 US dollars a month plus 7 cents per profile, with hand-set overrides of 4 dollars at 2 profiles and 12 dollars at 10. The term tabs carry data-discount values of 0, 30 and 50 for one, six and twelve months, and the twelve-month tab is the one that ships with class="active", so the price a visitor sees first is already the annual-prepay rate. The formatMoney helper in the same page renders a bare dollar sign, and a commented-out line shows a rouble conversion that is switched off, so the published currency is USD.

Reproducing it takes a few lines. The one thing worth getting right is the rounding: JavaScript's Math.round rounds a half up, while Python's built-in round rounds a half to even, and the two disagree at exactly the 1,000-profile annual price.

from decimal import Decimal, ROUND_HALF_UP

LADDER = [2, 10] + list(range(100, 10100, 100))
OVERRIDE = {2: 4, 10: 12}
TERM_DISCOUNT = {1: 0, 6: 30, 12: 50}


def half_up(x):
    """Match JavaScript Math.round; Python's round() would give 42 for 42.5."""
    return int(Decimal(str(x)).quantize(Decimal("1"), rounding=ROUND_HALF_UP))


def antbrowser_usd(profiles, months=1):
    tier = next(t for t in LADDER if t >= profiles)
    base = OVERRIDE.get(tier, half_up(15 + tier * 0.07))
    discount = min(TERM_DISCOUNT[months], 60)
    return half_up(base * (100 - discount) / 100), tier


for n in (2, 10, 25, 100, 200, 500, 1000):
    monthly, tier = antbrowser_usd(n)
    annual, _ = antbrowser_usd(n, 12)
    print(f"{n:>5} profiles -> tier {tier:>5}: ${monthly:>3}/mo, ${annual:>3}/mo on 12-month prepay")

Three things fall out of that formula that a feature table would never show you.

The ladder has a hole. The dropdown offers 2, then 10, then jumps straight to 100 and climbs in hundreds to 10,000. There is no 25 and no 50. A team that needs 25 profiles buys the 100-profile tier at 22 dollars a month, which is the same price a team with exactly 100 profiles pays. The formula would happily price 25 profiles at 17 dollars; the dropdown will not let you.

The fixed 15 dollars dominates at small scale and vanishes at large. At 100 profiles the per-profile component is 7 dollars against a 15-dollar base, so you are mostly paying rent for the account. At 10,000 profiles the per-profile component is 700 dollars and the base is a rounding error. The effective price per profile falls from 22 cents at 100 profiles to about 7.2 cents at 10,000.

Operators are free. This is the part that matters for this post. The Pro feature list includes "Creating and managing a team", "Joining the team", "Team statistics", "Profile transfer" and "Sharing profiles, proxies, progressors, interlocks". Nothing on the pricing page charges for a member, and no member count is published as a limit. The price is a function of profiles only. Add a tenth operator and the formula returns the same number.

For completeness, the free tier is a one-day trial with 2 profiles, proxy support is listed as HTTP(S) and SOCKS 4 and 5, and payment icons on the page are crypto: Bitcoin, DASH and Ethereum among them.

Two caveats that have nothing to do with price. First, the English product page contains no mention of an API, Selenium, Puppeteer or Playwright; we searched for all four and got zero hits. The only automation language on the page describes cookie-warming features it calls Heaters and Interlocks. If you need to drive profiles from code, that absence is the headline, not the 22 dollars. Second, the download buttons point at GitHub releases for AntBrowserOfficial/app, and the newest release there is v1.0.5, published 5 January 2025. The repository's last push is the same date. On 9 October 2026 that public download channel has been static for just over twenty-one months, which is a fact about the channel the site links to rather than proof about the product's internals, but it is the only release evidence the vendor offers.

Before any prices, here is the structural map. Every vendor in this post is in exactly one of these rows, and which row a vendor is in predicts its bill better than its tier names do.

The fourth row is where most of the market sits and where most of the money is lost, so it gets its own section.

Here is the finding this whole post exists for, and it is not in any competing roundup we could find.

Of the seven vendors priced below, exactly one publishes a price for an additional operator as a line item. Everyone else either gives seats away or sells them only as a side effect of moving up a profile tier. That means for most vendors there is no such thing as "add a seat". There is only "buy several hundred more profiles, and a seat comes with them".

Put a number on it. Hidemium's Cloud plans, on the yearly tab, run Basic at 153 dollars a year for 30 profiles and 1 team member, then Advanced at 204 dollars a year for 100 profiles and 1 team member, then Premium at 714 dollars a year for 1,000 profiles and 10 team members. A three-person team on 100 profiles fits Advanced perfectly on profiles and fails it on people. The only route to a third operator is Premium. That step costs 510 dollars a year more and hands you 900 profiles you did not ask for. Expressed as what you came for, the second and third operator cost 255 dollars a year each.

Octo Browser has the same shape in euros. Its Team plan is 169 euros a month for 600 profiles and 6 team members, while the tier directly below it, Base at 79 euros for 200 profiles, publishes no team member count at all. A three-person team on 100 profiles pays the 169-euro Team price, so it is paying 90 euros a month more than its profile count requires, and receiving 400 surplus profiles in exchange for 5 surplus seats.

Incogniton bundles more honestly because the bundle happens to be the right size: Professional at 79.99 dollars a month list carries 150 profiles and 3 team member seats, which is almost exactly the shape this post models. Its Entrepreneur tier at 29.99 dollars mentions "the option to purchase additional team seats" but publishes no price for one, so the 50-dollar step from Entrepreneur to Professional is the only seat cost you can actually read off the page.

Only Undetectable prints the number. Its Professional plan lists 2 users and then, directly underneath, "+$20 / user". Custom lists 5 users and "+$15 / user". Whatever you think of 20 dollars, it is a figure you can put in a spreadsheet and forecast, and that is rarer in this category than any fingerprint feature.

Read that table next to AntBrowser's formula and the shape of the decision changes. You are not shopping for a cheaper browser. You are shopping for a vendor that does not charge you in a currency of unwanted profiles.

Now the grid. Each cell is the cheapest plan that genuinely satisfies both constraints, profiles and operators, at the vendor's standard monthly term. Hidemium is quoted as an annual total because that is how its Cloud tab publishes prices; Octo Browser is in euros because that is the currency on its page. Mixing currencies in one table is ugly but honest, and the ranking does not depend on the exchange rate anywhere it matters.

Notes on specific cells, because a grid without them is a lie by compression. AntBrowser's column is flat down each operator block because operators are not in its formula; it only steps at 500 profiles, where the tier price becomes 50 dollars. ixBrowser's column is flat across profile counts because every one of its tiers carries unlimited profiles, so the published constraints it can fail are seats and daily throughput, never the profile count; its Free plan caps at 2 team seats, which is the only reason the one-operator rows are zero and the three-operator rows are not. At 500 profiles the 3.99-dollar Professional plan remains compliant on paper, but its 1,000 daily profile opens spread across 500 profiles is thin, so Business at 9.99 is the throughput-sane choice there rather than the cheapest one. Undetectable's cloud-profile allowance is fixed per plan at 50, 100 and a configurable 200-plus, and the configurator's price above 200 cloud profiles is not printed on the page, so the 500-profile cells are marked rather than guessed. Ghost Browser's column is flat across profiles because identities are unlimited and only users are counted.

Reproducing the grid is a short script, and running it on your own shape is more useful than trusting ours.

# Monthly-equivalent cost at a given team shape, from each vendor's published
# plan ladder. Figures read from the vendors' own pricing pages, 2026-10-09.
# Entry: (plan name, usd per month, max profiles, max operators)
BIG = 10 ** 9
LADDERS = {
    "AntBrowser":   [("Pro 100", 22, 100, BIG), ("Pro 200", 29, 200, BIG),
                     ("Pro 500", 50, 500, BIG)],
    "ixBrowser":    [("Free", 0.0, BIG, 2), ("Professional", 3.99, BIG, 20),
                     ("Business", 9.99, BIG, 50)],
    "Incogniton":   [("Starter Plus", 19.99, 10, 1), ("Entrepreneur", 29.99, 50, 1),
                     ("Professional", 79.99, 150, 3), ("Custom", 149.99, 500, 10)],
    "Hidemium":     [("Basic", 153 / 12, 30, 1), ("Advanced", 204 / 12, 100, 1),
                     ("Premium", 714 / 12, 1000, 10)],
    "Undetectable": [("Base", 34, 50, 1), ("Professional", 69, 100, 2),
                     ("Custom", 139, 200, 5)],
}
# Only one vendor publishes a per-seat add-on, so only one vendor has an entry here.
SEAT_ADDON = {"Undetectable": {"Professional": 20, "Custom": 15}}


def cheapest(vendor, profiles, operators):
    best = None
    for plan, price, max_profiles, max_ops in LADDERS[vendor]:
        if profiles > max_profiles:
            continue
        extra_seats = max(0, operators - max_ops)
        addon = SEAT_ADDON.get(vendor, {}).get(plan)
        if extra_seats and addon is None:
            continue  # seats are not sold separately on this plan
        total = price + extra_seats * (addon or 0)
        if best is None or total < best[1]:
            best = (plan, total)
    return best


def grid(profiles, team_sizes=(1, 3, 10)):
    print(f"\n{profiles} profiles")
    for vendor in LADDERS:
        cells = []
        for operators in team_sizes:
            got = cheapest(vendor, profiles, operators)
            cells.append(f"{operators}op " + (f"${got[1]:>7.2f} {got[0]}" if got
                                              else "  no plan published"))
        print(f"  {vendor:<13} " + " | ".join(cells))


for count in (25, 100, 500):
    grid(count)

The script reproduces the figures above, except that it divides Hidemium's annual totals by twelve so every vendor prints in the same unit, which is why its cells read 12.75, 17.00 and 59.50 rather than 153, 204 and 714. The structure it makes visible is the useful part: any vendor whose max_ops is 1 on the tier that fits your profile count is a vendor that will surprise you on the invoice the day you hire someone.

Fix the shape at three operators and 100 profiles, which is the modal small team, and let each vendor use its cheapest advertised term. The ranking:

AntBrowser places second out of seven, and that is the honest headline of this post. Its monthly rate of 22 dollars still beats fifth, sixth and seventh place. Anyone telling you to switch away from AntBrowser to save money at this shape is either selling something or has not read the vendor's own page.

So the five recommendations below are what the axis actually selects, which is a different list from the one these roundups usually produce. The axis picked ixBrowser because it moves the denominator off both profiles and people entirely. It picked Incogniton and Hidemium and Undetectable because they are the three cheapest vendors that sell a managed team layer at this shape, and because each one bundles the seat differently, so the three of them map the middle of the market. It picked Octo Browser last of the five, despite being the most expensive, because it is the only one here that publishes an API on a mid tier and a team tier sized for six, and because a team that intends to grow past three operators hits a wall with two of the cheaper four. Notably absent: the three vendors that every other roundup in this category recommends. Multilogin, Kameleo and Dolphin Anty are all real products, and none of them wins at three operators and 100 profiles on published prices, so none of them is here.

ixBrowser does something none of the others do: it gives every tier unlimited browser profiles and charges for activity instead. The published tiers, in USD per month, are Free at 0, Professional at 3.99, Business at 9.99 and Enterprise at 19.99. There is also a Basic Developer plan at 9.99 dollars a year.

What separates them is a pair of throughput meters and a seat count:

Read the three-operator row of the grid again with this table next to it. The reason ixBrowser's Free plan does not win is the seat count, 2, and nothing else. The jump to three operators costs 3.99 dollars a month and buys 18 more seats than you need, 10x the daily creation budget and 10x the daily opens. For a three-person team on 100 profiles, Professional's 1,000 opens a day works out to 10 opens per profile per day, or roughly 330 profile sessions per operator per shift. That is comfortable for account-maintenance work and tight for anything that cycles profiles aggressively.

The 9.99-dollar-a-year Basic Developer plan is the oddity, and on paper it is the cheapest way for a team of up to 10 to get started, at under 85 cents a month. Its meters are the Free plan's: 10 creations and 100 opens a day. Building 100 profiles on it takes ten days, and 100 opens split three ways is roughly 33 profile sessions per person per day. For a slow, steady book of accounts that is genuinely workable. For anything else the 3.99-dollar plan is the real floor.

The failure mode here is different from everyone else's. You will not get a seat error or a profile-limit error; you will get throttled mid-shift on a Tuesday because somebody batch-imported cookies. Price the meters, not the profiles. If you are weighing it against the no-cost tiers elsewhere in the category, the limits that actually bite are catalogued in Free Antidetect Browsers.

Incogniton is the vendor whose bundle happens to match the shape this post models, which makes it the simplest recommendation in the list. Its published monthly list prices are 19.99 dollars for Starter Plus at 10 profiles, 29.99 for Entrepreneur at 50 profiles, 79.99 for Professional at 150 profiles with 3 team member seats, and from 149.99 for Custom at 500-plus profiles. Term discounts are 30 percent on six months and 40 percent on yearly, so Professional lands at 55.99 dollars a month on six-month billing and 47.99 on yearly.

Three seats in the base price at a 150-profile allowance is the right rectangle for a three-person team on 100 profiles. Nothing is surplus and nothing is short. The free starter package gives 10 profiles for the first two months and then drops to 3, which is enough to evaluate the profile model but not enough to test a team workflow.

The page also ships a configurator, and it is worth looking at because it tells you where the ceiling is: sliders run to 5,000 browser profiles and 25 team member seats, and the shown configuration of 500 profiles with 10 seats prices at 149.99 dollars a month billed monthly. That means Incogniton's bill is flat from roughly 150 profiles with 3 seats up to 500 profiles with 10 seats, with one 70-dollar step between them. For a team that expects to double in headcount, a single known step is easier to plan around than Hidemium's or Octo's tier jumps.

Entrepreneur is the tier to be careful with. It carries API access, Selenium and Puppeteer integration, the cookie collector and the synchronizer at 29.99 dollars, and it describes "the option to purchase additional team seats" without printing a price for one. If your team is two people on 50 profiles, that unpublished number is the difference between 29.99 and 79.99 a month, and you will have to ask for it.

Hidemium is in this list because it is the fourth-cheapest vendor that sells a managed team layer at our shape, and it is worth studying because its ladder shows the seat-bundling problem in its purest form.

The Cloud tab, yearly billing with a 15 percent discount applied, publishes these:

Advanced is the plan built for a 100-profile operation, at 17 dollars a month equivalent, and it would be the cheapest managed option in this entire post if it carried three seats. It carries one. There is nothing between Advanced and Premium, so a third operator moves you from 204 dollars a year to 714, a 3.5x increase to buy two more people. The 900 extra profiles and the nine extra device slots come along whether you want them or not.

Watch the device column as well as the member column. Basic and Advanced permit 1 device each. Three people on three laptops are blocked by that line alone, independently of the member count, which means a small team cannot quietly share one Advanced login as a workaround.

Two honesty notes. Hidemium's own pricing page carries the disclaimer that "The prices are for reference only. Please install the app to view the most accurate prices", so treat these as indicative and confirm in the client before you commit. And the page's "5,800+ teams managing over 1.5 million accounts" line is the vendor's own marketing claim, published without a methodology; we have not verified it and neither should you.

Where Hidemium earns its place is above 500 profiles. Premium's 1,000-profile, 10-member, 10-device allowance at 714 dollars a year is 59.50 a month, and at that point the surplus profiles stop being surplus. A team growing from 100 to 800 profiles pays Hidemium nothing extra across the whole range. Few ladders in this category are that flat for that long.

Undetectable is the only vendor in this comparison whose plan card prints a price for an additional user, and that alone makes it worth a serious look if you are the person who has to forecast the bill.

The page offers a yearly toggle advertising 30 percent off, though the per-year totals printed on the cards sit within a few dollars of twelve times the monthly figure, so confirm what the discount actually applies to at checkout rather than assuming it from the card.

At three operators and 100 profiles the arithmetic is unambiguous: Professional at 69 dollars covers 2 users and 100 cloud profiles, the third operator is a published 20 dollars, total 89 dollars a month. That is four times AntBrowser's monthly rate and nearly twice Incogniton's yearly-billed rate, and in exchange you get a number you can multiply. Scaling to 10 operators, Professional would reach 229 dollars; Custom at 139 with 5 users included and 15 dollars for each of the next 5 reaches 214. The two plans tie at exactly 169 dollars on the seventh operator, and Custom wins from the eighth. Being able to compute a crossover point at all is the feature.

The detail most comparisons miss on Undetectable is the split between cloud profiles and local profiles. The cloud-profile allowance is the thing that is capped and fixed per plan. Local profiles appear on every tier without a published number, and a Local API is listed from Base upward. If your team can work from local profiles and does not need every profile synced through the vendor's storage, the cap that drives the whole pricing ladder stops being the binding constraint, and Base at 34 dollars becomes interesting for a single operator with far more than 50 profiles. That is a question to settle in a trial, not from a pricing page.

Octo Browser is the most expensive of the five and it is here for two reasons: it publishes its full term ladder as data in the page, and its Team tier is the only one in this comparison sized for a team that is about to grow past three.

Prices are in euros, which we verified from the currency element in the page source rather than inferring from a symbol. The exact per-month figures the page carries for each term:

Base at 79 euros carries 200 profiles and API access, and no team member count. Team at 169 euros carries 600 profiles, 6 members and API access. A three-operator team on 100 profiles therefore pays Team, which is 90 euros a month more than its profile count needs. On the 12-month term that comes down to 119 euros, which is still the second-most expensive cell in the ranking.

What you buy for the premium is headroom in the dimension that breaks the cheaper options. Hidemium's Premium tops out at 10 members, Incogniton's published configurator at 25 seats, Undetectable's Custom at 5 users plus paid extras. Octo's Team covers 6 members at a profile allowance of 600, and Advanced jumps to 100,000 profiles. A pod that is three people today and eight in six months buys Team once and stops thinking about it, where the same pod on Hidemium Advanced would re-tier twice.

Octo also runs a two-day trial on Starter behind the promo code TRIAL published on the page, and a banner offering new users 100 free profiles on its iOS and Android apps. Treat promotional allowances as promotional; price the steady state.

A selection rule is only honest if it also names what it rejected.

Ghost Browser is the clearest rejection and the most instructive. Its entire bill is seats: the pricing page carries a users quantity selector, and the two paid tiers are "From $21" and "From $46" per month, both labelled "when paying annually". Identities and Workspaces are unlimited. For one person with 500 profiles it is the cheapest paid option in this whole post at 46 dollars a month flat, which is a genuinely good deal nobody mentions. For three operators it is 138 dollars, last place. There is also a trap in the cheaper tier: the Basic plan's own feature list states it "Does NOT include Ghost Proxy Control", which is the feature that assigns a proxy per tab, per identity or per workspace. Three operators on Basic would be 63 dollars a month and would rank fourth, except that a plan which cannot bind a proxy to an identity is not doing the job this category exists for. The free tier allows up to 3 identities with no account required, and does include Ghost Proxy Control.

Camoufox is rejected for the opposite reason: its denominator is zero and it has no seat concept to price. It is a real, actively maintained anti-detect browser, not a hobby repo. On 9 October 2026 the GitHub repository showed 12,428 stars, an MPL-2.0 licence, a last push dated 8 October 2026 and a most recent release of v156.0.1-beta.36 published 6 October 2026. That is a project shipping releases days apart, which is more than can be said for several commercial download channels. What it does not ship is a shared profile store, a team permission model or a seat. Three operators coordinating on 100 profiles would have to build that layer, and the cost moves from an invoice to an engineer's calendar. If you have the engineer, it is the cheapest option by a wide margin and belongs on your list. If you do not, a 3.99-dollar plan is cheaper than a week of anyone's time.

AdsPower was a candidate and is excluded on evidence, not on merit. Its pricing page renders profile and member selectors but computes the prices client-side from an endpoint we could not read, so no figure on that page could be quoted to the standard the rest of this post uses. Rather than carry a number from a third-party blog, we left it out. The same rule removed a handful of others.

Multilogin, Kameleo and Dolphin Anty get one line between them, which is already more than their published prices earn at this shape. They are the default trio in nearly every antidetect roundup, and none of them is the cheapest way to put three people on 100 profiles. Recommending them here would be a habit, not an analysis. If you want the broader field laid out by price rather than by seat behaviour, we keep a standing comparison in Antidetect Browser Pricing Compared.

One more thing the axis cannot score: what it costs to leave. Profiles, cookies and fingerprint configurations do not move between these products on a standard format, and the practical mechanics of carrying a book of accounts from one vendor to another are covered separately in How to Migrate Antidetect Browser Profiles. Budget it before you switch to save 18 dollars a month.

Every vendor above sells you a profile with an empty proxy field. None of them sells the IP. That means your real monthly cost is two bills on two different denominators, and the second one is usually the larger of the pair.

The common proxy denominator is traffic: a price per gigabyte, metered. That unit interacts badly with the work these browsers do, because account maintenance is thousands of small, unpredictable sessions rather than a measurable crawl, and a per-GB meter turns a browser subscription you can forecast into a bill you cannot. We unpack how that pricing model behaves in Residential Proxy Pricing Explained.

SparkProxy's residential plans use a different unit on purpose. Pricing starts from 75 dollars a month, plans are sold as packs rather than per gigabyte, and unlimited bandwidth is included, so the billing unit is the plan and its concurrency rather than the traffic you consume. The pool is over 1 million premium IPs across 80-plus countries, with random rotation and 5-minute auto-rotation, HTTP, HTTPS and SOCKS5, IP whitelist and user-password authentication, and 1 Gbps port speed. There is a 24-hour free trial with no card, and term discounts of 5, 10 and 15 percent at 3, 6 and 12 months. For a three-operator team, that matters for the same structural reason the seat question does: a flat denominator does not surprise you when activity spikes. Which proxy type suits which kind of account work is a separate question, and we cover it in Best Proxies for Antidetect Browsers.

There is a practical reason to care about currency and country here too. Octo prices in euros, AntBrowser's own page ships twelve language variants, and AdsPower's page offers USD, BRL, PLN and VND. Before you commit to a vendor on a quoted price, it is worth checking whether the page you are reading is the page your billing country gets. That check is a request from the right exit, and SparkProxy's Scraping API does it in one call:

import base64
import requests

API = "https://scrape.sparkproxy.io/api/v1"
KEY = "your-sparkproxy-api-key"  # 1,000 free credits on signup


def pricing_page(url, country):
    """Fetch a vendor pricing page from a given country and return the envelope."""
    response = requests.get(
        API,
        headers={"X-API-Key": KEY},
        params={
            "url": url,
            "render_js": "false",      # static pricing HTML: 1 credit, not 5
            "country_code": country,   # +5 credits
            "proxy_type": "premium",
            "json_response": "true",   # the envelope lives here; format= only converts content
        },
        timeout=60,
    )
    response.raise_for_status()
    envelope = response.json()
    # json_response returns the body base64-encoded. Decode before matching anything.
    html = base64.b64decode(envelope["body"]).decode("utf-8", "replace")
    return envelope, html


MARKERS = {"USD": "$", "EUR": "EUR", "Brazilian real": "R$", "Polish zloty": "PLN"}

for country in ("us", "de", "br", "pl"):
    envelope, html = pricing_page("https://antbrowser.pro/en/", country)
    found = [name for name, needle in MARKERS.items() if needle in html]
    print(country,
          "http", envelope["status_code"],
          envelope["credits_used"], "credits",
          f"{envelope['duration_ms']} ms",
          "currencies seen:", found or ["none"])

Two parameter details are worth internalising because they cost real money. render_js defaults to true and costs 5 credits; a pricing page whose numbers are in the HTML does not need it, and render_js=false is a 1-credit plain fetch. And json_response=true is the only thing that produces the envelope with job_id, status_code, duration_ms, credits_used and body. The format parameter converts the content itself between html, md, mdx, json, screenshot and pdf; reaching for format=json when you want the envelope is a mistake that looks like it works until you try to read credits_used.

The same check from the shell, for when you just want one country:

curl -s -G "https://scrape.sparkproxy.io/api/v1" \
  -H "X-API-Key: $SPARKPROXY_API_KEY" \
  --data-urlencode "url=https://antbrowser.pro/en/" \
  --data-urlencode "render_js=false" \
  --data-urlencode "country_code=de" \
  --data-urlencode "proxy_type=premium" \
  --data-urlencode "json_response=true" \
| python -c "import sys,json,base64; e=json.load(sys.stdin); print(e['status_code'], e['credits_used'], 'credits'); print(base64.b64decode(e['body']).decode('utf-8','replace')[:300])"

If you are running three operators against shared infrastructure, the proxy side has a seat question of its own: who holds the credentials, and what happens when one of them leaves. Splitting access into separate sub-users rather than sharing one login is covered in How to Create and Manage Sub-Users and Credential Rotation.