What do you like best about Brave?
Brave feels like a browser designed around a clear philosophy: reduce tracking and advertising noise by default, and let me control the remaining edge cases with simple, site-specific tools. The standout feature for me is Shields, because it turns privacy protection into a first-class part of navigation instead of something I have to assemble from multiple extensions, each with its own update cycle, UI, and side effects.
In day-to-day use, I like that Shields is both “set and forget” and also adjustable when a site needs special handling. Most of the time I leave the defaults alone and just browse, but when something behaves oddly, I can quickly check whether the site is relying on third-party elements that are being blocked. That combination, strong defaults plus a fast per-site override, is what makes the privacy posture sustainable. A setup that requires constant micromanagement is not realistic long term.
I also appreciate how Brave frames privacy as several mechanisms, not a single magic switch. In a modern browser threat model, tracking comes from multiple layers, cookies, storage, third-party requests, and fingerprinting-style signals. Brave’s approach encourages me to think in those categories and make more informed decisions. Even when I do not need deep technical control, it helps that the browser reflects a real mental model of how websites track people.
Another thing I genuinely like is how Brave reduces friction from cookie prompts and similar consent pop-ups. Even when a prompt is technically “legitimate,” the practical effect is that it interrupts reading and forces repetitive clicks. When the browser can reduce those interruptions, the web feels calmer and less adversarial. It also changes the default experience in a way that is noticeable within minutes, which makes Brave’s value easy to evaluate.
The built-in security posture is also a plus. I do not have to hunt for settings just to get basic protective behavior. I tend to use Brave as a primary browser for general web use because it provides a privacy baseline that does not feel fragile. I still keep an eye on sensitive workflows like payments or SSO logins, but I like that the browser starts from “protect first” rather than “collect first.”
Brave Search is another component I like having available, even if I do not use it for every query. The idea of a search engine that aims to avoid profiling fits well with the rest of the product. I find it useful to have an alternative that I can switch to quickly when I want a cleaner search experience that is less centered around ad targeting. It also reduces the sense that I need to leave the Brave ecosystem to get privacy-oriented defaults.
The built-in AI assistant is convenient in a very pragmatic way. I do not need another tab, another login, or another extension just to do basic drafting, rewriting, or quick Q and A while I am already working in the browser. I treat it as an optional tool rather than a core reason to choose Brave, but I like that it is integrated in a way that does not break the browsing flow.
From an IT and manageability perspective, Brave’s enterprise-friendly direction is a real advantage. Being able to standardize browser behavior, including enabling or disabling certain features, makes Brave more viable in environments that care about policy consistency. Even for an individual power user, the ability to hide or disable parts of the UI matters, because it lets me keep the browser focused on my workflow instead of on every possible feature Brave offers.
A final, practical strength is that Brave is Chromium-based. In my experience, that translates into solid compatibility with modern web apps. It is easier to keep privacy protections enabled when the underlying rendering and extension ecosystem are familiar and stable. Privacy is not useful if the browser constantly forces me into exceptions or fallback browsers for routine tasks. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
What do you dislike about Brave?
Brave can feel like a lot. While its mission is privacy-first browsing, the product also ships with a wide range of adjacent features that compete for attention: VPN, AI assistant, Rewards, wallet, news-style surfaces, and various integrations. Even when those features are optional, they still create UI density and decision fatigue. I often recommend Brave to people who want fewer distractions, but the browser itself sometimes undermines that recommendation by presenting too many pathways.
This also affects onboarding. If someone installs Brave expecting “Chrome, but private,” the additional feature surfaces can be confusing. A more opinionated setup flow, where Brave asks what kind of user I am and then tailors visible entry points, would help. I would rather choose a “minimal browsing” profile on day one than spend time hunting through settings to hide things I do not want.
Shields is powerful, but it is not always transparent when troubleshooting. When a site breaks, the cause might be blocked third-party scripts, strict cookie behavior, or a protection that interferes with fingerprinting-related APIs. The browser gives me toggles, but it does not always give me enough explanation to make a targeted change quickly. The result is that debugging sometimes becomes a cycle of “turn off, reload, turn on, reload” until I find a configuration that works.
The per-site override is also a bit blunt. In many cases, a site only needs one specific third-party domain for a payment widget, embedded media, identity provider, or customer support chat. I would prefer a more granular exception workflow that lets me keep Shields strong while allowing the minimum necessary component. Right now, it is easy to end up with exceptions that are broader than needed, which gradually weakens the overall posture. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
