The larger the team gets, the faster you realize that the stability of antica affects not only an individual media buyer’s comfort, but also the operating speed of the entire infrastructure.
Currently, around 15-20 people at Vision within FTD.team use it, including some media buyers, the account farming department, and team leads. This is not the entire team: some specialists are constantly testing other solutions or working with setups where agents provide the antidetect browsers, making it impossible to choose Vision. Several hundred profiles pass through the team every week, and during active scaling periods, the volume becomes even higher.
We’ll explain how we came to Vision, how we tested it within the team, and what changed after more than a year of use.
Why We Decided to Look for Another Antidetect Browser
Before Vision, we had worked with several solutions. Dolphin was our main browser for a long time, then the team switched to AdsPower, while also testing other antidetect browsers in parallel. You cannot say that the previous browsers completely stopped our work, but the issues became noticeable at scale.
Profiles could take a long time to load, and when they were handed off between farming and the media buyer, some data sometimes failed to sync. As a result, you had to log back into accounts or send a profile back to the farming department for review. During mass launches, lags would appear from time to time. Not every day, but regularly enough to start slowing down operations.
The profile launch speed was also frustrating: in some cases, you had to wait 20-30 seconds. On top of that, service costs kept rising, while resolving issues through support was not always as fast as we wanted.
At the same time, we never tried to directly link bans to the antidetect browser. In iGaming, there are plenty of reasons for an account to get banned even without the browser, so it would be incorrect to judge the tool solely by the number of bans.
The main issue was different: too much time went into maintaining the workflow instead of media buying itself. Vision is one example of how we rebuild internal processes at scale. We share other tests, useful findings, and FTD.team’s behind-the-scenes operations on Telegram
What Was Important When Choosing
Today, most major antidetect browsers more or less cover the same set of basic tasks, so it did not make much sense for us to look for a service based on who had more features.
Two things were critical.
The first was stability. At a volume of several hundred profiles per week, any serious issue with the antidetect browser starts affecting farming, media buyers, and team leads at the same time.
The second was the API. A significant part of FTD.team’s internal processes relies on automation and neural networks, so the browser had to integrate properly into this system without forcing the team to constantly rework internal scripts after every update.
There were also fairly routine but important requirements: profiles had to launch quickly, roles and permissions had to be properly separated, and the large number of accounts needed folders, tags, statuses, and notes.
Why We Ultimately Chose Vision
When Vision first appeared on the market, we decided to simply take a look at the new product. Without a major comparison table or a lengthy tender process, we tested it within the team.
First, we selected a small group of media buyers and ran Vision in production for about two weeks. During that period, around 100 profiles went through it.
That was enough to evaluate not only the interface, but also how the browser behaved in the team’s usual workflow: farming prepared a profile → handed it to the media buyer → the media buyer launched it → the team lead gained access to the process when necessary.
After the test, it became clear that the product met our main requirements:
- A simple, intuitive interface.
- Stable profile operation.
- Reasonable cost of use.
- Responsive support.
- Flexible access control.
- An API that integrated into our automation without issues.
After that, we began moving the main volume to Vision.
How the Migration Went
The migration itself turned out to be easier than we expected.
We prepared for it in advance and assumed that the technical side could take almost a full workday, especially if we had to manually transfer profiles, settings, and proxies.
In reality, after the two-week test, the technical migration of the working environment took about one hour: the necessary data synced automatically, after which the team spot-checked the accounts and continued working.
We moved the main volume gradually to avoid forcing the entire team to change tools all at once.
The interaction model barely changed: farming still prepares profiles, the media buyer takes them into work, and the team lead monitors the process. There are simply fewer extra steps and messages between these stages.
What Changed After the Migration, in Numbers
The most noticeable change was the time required to transfer profiles.
Previously, transferring a single profile together with verification could take 10-15 minutes. The media buyer received the account and checked whether everything opened correctly, whether the data had been retained, and whether anything needed to be synced again. If an issue arose, the profile went back to farming.
Now, the same process usually takes a couple of minutes.
If you take a typical batch of 20 profiles, several accounts on average could previously be returned to the farming department for additional review. Now, such situations are rare. In practice, the difference is especially visible during mass transfers.
Let’s say farming prepared 20 profiles.
Previously, after receiving them, the media buyer had to go through the accounts, open each one, check that the data was retained, and send problematic profiles back. The entire procedure could easily take 20-30 minutes. Now, farming hands over the batch, the media buyer opens the profiles, and starts working almost immediately. In most cases, the entire stage takes a few minutes.
The situation with downtime is similar. Previously, a single technical issue could take a media buyer out of the workflow for 20-30 minutes. Now, such cases happen noticeably less often. At the scale of one person, the difference may seem small. At the scale of 15-20 employees and several hundred profiles every week, those minutes add up to a very tangible amount of working time.
That is why we constantly refine internal processes within the team. If you are interested not only in reading about them but in one day becoming part of a strong team, follow updates on Telegram.
How the Team’s Daily Work Changed
Perhaps the best indicator for an infrastructure tool is when people stop discussing it on calls.
After the migration, there was no longer a need to constantly think about the antidetect browser.
Each employee works within their own space with separated permissions: farmers get access to the profiles they need, media buyers get access to theirs, and critical actions such as deleting accounts can be reserved only for employees who truly need them.
With a large number of profiles, folders, tags, and notes are helpful. Instead of searching for the needed account through messages or constantly asking for clarification within the team, you can find the required profile in a few seconds. Switching between different work and personal accounts also became easier. Previously, when working on several projects in parallel, you had to constantly log in and out, which took time and created unnecessary confusion. Now, switching takes a couple of clicks within a single account.
In a vacuum, this is a minor detail. But solid infrastructure is made up of exactly these details that stop taking up a media buyer’s attention.
What Vision Can Still Improve
After a year of use, we have not concluded that the product is perfect and that there is nothing left to change. At our scale, it would be especially useful to see more bulk actions for profiles, further automation development, and more detailed team performance statistics.
When you have several accounts, manually performing an additional action is not a problem. When you have hundreds of profiles, every action you can apply to an entire batch at once starts saving noticeable time. That is why the development of bulk tools and team analytics currently looks like the most interesting direction for us.
Vision’s Main Advantages After More Than a Year
- Stability. During the time we have used it, we have not encountered situations where the entire team’s work stopped because of the antidetect browser. For a tool through which hundreds of profiles pass weekly, this is one of the main criteria.
- API. Vision integrated properly into FTD.team’s internal infrastructure. Automation continues to work without the constant need to fix scripts after browser updates.
- Operating speed. Profile transfers were reduced from a nominal 10-15 minutes, including additional checks, to a few minutes in a standard scenario. Profiles get from farming to the media buyer faster, while the number of returns for review has decreased.
- Teamwork. Roles, permissions, folders, tags, and notes make it possible to properly split processes between farming, media buyers, and team leads without unnecessary manual coordination.
- Cost. In terms of pricing, Vision proved more appealing to us than previous solutions: the plans themselves are more favorable, while the cost of additional profiles remains comfortable. The more the team grows, the more noticeable this difference becomes.
- Support. If a question comes up, you do not have to wait weeks for a response or explain the same problem several times. Support usually gets involved quickly and helps bring the issue to a resolution.
Afterword
We were not looking for the “perfect antidetect browser,” nor did we choose a product based on the longest feature list. We needed a working tool that could handle volume, integrate properly into internal automation, and not force media buyers to spend time maintaining the browser itself. For more than a year, the antidetect browser issue has practically disappeared from the agenda of work calls. For us, that is perhaps the main result.
If an infrastructure tool works properly, you should not have to constantly remember that it exists. Farming hands over the profiles, the media buyer receives them and starts driving traffic, the team lead monitors the process, and the technical side stays in the background. That is exactly what we wanted from Vision.
You do not have to take our experience at face value: it is always better to test Vision with your own setup and volume. You can do so with a 20% discount using the promo code FTD.
- Do you want not only to read about how we work, but also to become part of FTD.team? In our Telegram, we have collected the team’s current openings. Join us.
Comments