Short answer: usually not — unless you have a legitimate, specific business need and you understand the technical, legal and operational risks. For most people and companies the costs and hazards outweigh the benefits.

Why people buy “antidetect” browsers

• They promise to mask/alter browser fingerprinting (User-Agent, canvas, WebGL, fonts, timezone, hardware concurrency, etc.).
• Typical legitimate uses: automated QA and ad/geo verification, managing multiple legitimate accounts for marketing/CRM, research into fraud/fingerprinting defenses, privacy-conscious testing.
• Typical illicit uses: evading platform rules, running scalable account fraud, bypassing ad/tech/security controls.

Why they’re often not worth it

• Detection arms race: fingerprinting and server-side telemetry change constantly. Vendors and platforms adapt quickly; what works today often fails later.
• False sense of security: many products only alter superficial fields; deep signals (behavioral patterns, TLS fingerprints, OS-level artifacts, network metadata) still reveal you.
• Operational complexity: to be effective you usually need carefully matched IPs (residential/ISP-level), separate VMs/profiles, consistent browser/OS stacks, and strict OPSEC — that raises cost and fragility.
• Legal/contract risk: using them to evade bans or commit fraud can violate terms of service and laws (computer fraud, wire fraud, etc.) — heavy consequences.
• Cost vs alternatives: good proxy/VPN setups, browser profiles (e.g., isolated user profiles, containers), virtualization, and well-designed automation can meet many legitimate needs cheaper and safer.

When they might be worth the investment

• Your business legitimately needs to run many isolated, persistent browser contexts (e.g., global ad verification, large-scale social-media management for many clients) and you can:
  • Combine the browser with correct IP infrastructure (residential ISP-class IPs or geo-accurate proxies).
  • Operate strict procedures for profile hygiene, secrets, and data handling.
  • Accept ongoing maintenance and subscription churn because detection changes.
  • Have legal counsel confirm compliance with laws and platform terms.

If you consider buying one — evaluation checklist

• Use-case fit: Is your use legal and allowed by the platforms you target? Can you justify it to counsel?
• Technical depth: Does it convincingly modify low-level fingerprints (TLS, WebRTC, canvas, fonts, timezone) and keep up with changes? Ask for technical docs/demos.
• Network match: Can you integrate it with appropriate proxies/IPs and manage DNS/geo/timezone consistency?
• Isolation: Does it give persistent, isolated storage and profile separation (cookies, localStorage, device IDs)?
• Auditability & logging: Can you track actions and revoke compromised profiles?
• Support & updates: How fast do they release updates when platforms detect/deny their fingerprints?
• Red flags: anonymous sellers, promises of “100% undetectable”, no trial/demo, or vendors that encourage breaking platform rules.

Safer alternatives

• Use legitimate multi-account management platforms that comply with terms.
• Use well-configured browser automation with real browsers + separate OS-level VMs/containers and proper proxies.
• Improve hygiene: separate devices/VMs, unique email/phone verification, consistent behavioral patterns, MFA and security best practices.
• Hire specialists (security/anti-fraud) or consult legal counsel before proceeding.

Bottom line If your work is legitimate, high-value, and requires many isolated browser identities, an antidetect product—used carefully with proper IPs, ops, and legal review—can sometimes be worth it. For most users the expense, fragility, and legal/ethical risk make them a poor investment compared with safer alternatives.