| --- |
| license: cc-by-4.0 |
| pretty_name: "The State of AI Browser Extensions 2026 — Open Dataset" |
| tags: |
| - chrome-web-store |
| - ai |
| - browser-extensions |
| --- |
| |
| # The State of AI Browser Extensions 2026 — Open Dataset |
|
|
| Aggregate data behind the study **[The State of AI Browser Extensions 2026: The Labs' Own Extensions Are the Worst-Rated](https://crawlora.net/blog/ai-browser-extensions-2026?utm_source=huggingface&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ai-browser-extensions-2026)**. |
|
|
| A July 2026 crawl of **39,241 AI-labeled Chrome Web Store extensions**, measuring install counts, star ratings, host permissions, and declared data collection — with a first-party AI-lab vs third-party aggregator comparison. |
|
|
| ## Headline findings |
|
|
| - The AI labs' own first-party extensions are the **worst-rated** in the category. Anthropic's **Claude** extension is the 2nd most-installed AI extension (11M) but carries a **2.71-star** rating — the lowest of any AI extension over ~1M users. |
| - **Zero distribution overlap** between the two groups: every first-party lab extension (Claude 2.71, ChatGPT 3.33 / 3.74, Perplexity 3.65–3.83) rates below every major third-party aggregator (Sider 4.92, Monica 4.89, Merlin 4.79, MaxAI 4.75, HARPA 4.69) — a 1.36-star gap between group averages. |
| - Only **three** major labs ship a verified first-party browser extension: OpenAI, Anthropic, and Perplexity. Google (Gemini), Microsoft (Copilot), xAI (Grok), Mistral, and DeepSeek ship none. |
| - **Popularity buys permissions**: broad host access rises from 28% of all AI extensions to 63% of the 100k+ tier. |
|
|
| ## Files |
|
|
| | File | Description | |
| |---|---| |
| | `data/summary.json` | Universe sizing, rating-contrast rollups, privacy counts, and the list of labs with no first-party extension. | |
| | `data/top-extensions.csv` | The most-installed AI extensions with users, rating, rating count, and permission flags. | |
| | `data/first-party-vs-third-party.csv` | First-party AI-lab extensions vs third-party AI aggregators, with users and ratings. | |
|
|
| ## Method & caveats |
|
|
| Data was pulled through [Crawlora](https://crawlora.net?utm_source=huggingface&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ai-browser-extensions-2026)'s Chrome Web Store dataset endpoints. User counts are Chrome's **bucketed** install values (e.g. "11,000,000"), not exact. `rating` is the store's mean star score; `rating_count` is the number of reviews and is far smaller than installs (e.g. Claude: 1,306 ratings against 11M installs), so lab scores reflect a small, self-selected sample. The `q="AI"` universe is a keyword match that includes writing, PDF, translation, and scraping tools; the clean apples-to-apples comparison is the lab-vs-aggregator cut. First-party publishers were verified by developer email domain and known extension IDs; impostor/spoofed developer names were excluded. |
|
|
| This dataset is **aggregate-only** — no individual reviews, reviewer names, or review text. |
|
|
| ## License |
|
|
| [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)](./LICENSE). Attribute to **Crawlora** and link to the study. |
|
|
| ## Citation |
|
|
| See [`CITATION.cff`](./CITATION.cff). |
|
|
