Equivalent of Multi-Account Containers or Temporary Containers Extension (FF)

As a cloud engineer, I need to open/authenticate to 5 - 25 accounts at a time. This is the only last use case for FF. +1 for this request.


the only reason I still use FF over Brave, this is a game changer for me

1 Like

Please don’t wait for enough votes, just add it. It is one of these features that people don’t realize they need until they try using it.


I LOVED those features in Firefox, and they were the sole reason it took me so long to leave FF for Brave, and even then I only did so because I learned that all those extensions I was running was giving me a pretty unique “fingerprint” online.

I have loved Brave ever since the move (especially now that I am not supporting overtly Marxist software developers at Firefox). But with the SUPERB feature of being able to have CONTAINERS for ALL sites I visit, it would be truly awesome and as others have said, I also agree it would help bring many old Firefox-clingons over to the light side. :slight_smile:


+100 This is an extremely useful feature. I am wondering if this is something that first needs to be implemented in Chromium so that to be available in Brave and if there is a related open request in Chromium/Chrome as well

1 Like

I would love to see this feature on brave! It’s the only feature keeping me on FF.

1 Like

I’m just going to say, for anyone wanting this, try to tag in over at

I had Tweeted over and Brian Bondy (@brian) said Peter Snyder (@pes) (@pes10k on Twitter) is the one to follow up and advise not only if it’s possible, but whether it happens. Unfortunately, Pes has not responded to email I’ve sent in the past and has not responded to being tagged on Twitter (though he does Tweet other stuff regularly).

And of course I’m tagging here and saying what I am because also wanting to bring their attention back over on this. But would be nice if they can clarify about:

  • If this can be done

  • If this is so far low on the radar we may as well assume never going to be done.

  • Any pros and cons, especially of security or privacy risks that might exist in considering it.

cc: @NoMoreFirefox @eduardo404 @iraklisg @bartek

Apparently it won’t be implemented anyway.
I thought it was worth voting, especially considering that this is the third most voted topic for the “Desktop requests” tag.

I will keep an eye and maybe come back to check brave again in one year or so.

Thank you!

1 Like

How to know if the devs are even reading on this topic? Any news from any people from Brave ? It’d be great to just even know if this is something the Brave Dev community is planning to work on or just what they think of it

1 Like

This will only get implemented if Google decided to implement it, it will never come from Brave.

And Brave team rarely reads these forums, they use Github and Slack to communicate.

Nothing stops Chromium from isolating storages anyway, they already kind of do that in a lot of ways, but they are not doing it, just like they don’t want to add Extensions for Android and other features Chromium just doesn’t care to add.

About Isolating Storage, there is Ephemeral Storage, you can have two storages Persistent and other Ephemeral, with different logins for the same site.
You just need to move a domain from Sites that clear cookies when you close them to Sites that can always use cookies and refresh and done.
So it is not the same, but it shows that even Brave could isolate storage like they already do, but asking a containers like feature, is bigger than Ephemeral Storage, because it is about UI, APIs and UX and a lot of work and controls and setting that let’s be honest, are not worth the investment for a company like Brave that is just a spork of Chromium, and for users who want to login in 3 reddit accounts and 5 twitter and 10 Facebook, only because they don’t want different profiles. (maybe same reason why Chromium doesn’t care to implement it)

Just like many features Brave has inherited from upstream Chromium Screenshot, download bubble, tab groups, etc etc, that will be the same for Containers, so it is better if you go to Chromium source, find the issue where people requested this and ask for it, because there most be one for sure.

1 Like

The use case is valid and is unfortunately why I have to keep Edge, Firefox, and Chrome still installed. I need to often bounce into multiple 365 tenants while remaining signed into my own on Brave. I typically also leverage the equivalent “incognito” mode for each of these. Being able to containerize a tab instantly would be awesome. I would envision the ability to just right-click the tab > Containerize. While I’m thinking wishfully, perhaps also a right-click > Incognitoize" option too! :smiley: Having the ability to containerize or incognitoize multiple tabs in the same profile would be an unspeakably powerful feature that would move Brave ahead of the pack by a long shot.


Yeah, damn that would be SO awesome

1 Like

Would love this feature! Specifically, I have many Zoho Mail accounts and it does not support account switching.


I cant believe we are just some days to year 2024 and still not having this feature in a browser like Brave. Might go back to firefox


Likely won’t ever come. They explained it’s a very heavy lift and may not even be possible on a chromium browser in general. I lost track of the Community Call where he explained, but let me tag in @kdenhartog and we’ll see if he might be willing/able to reply here on that.

very true. It is not a disagreement if the opponents opinion is “I dont know what Containers are and it works for me”


  • isolate cookies in the same tab bar, the same browser window
  • allow easy temporary cookies, with “Temporary container”
  • allow logging in with multiple profiles in the same browser window and session
  • assigning URLs to open in a specific container can help against tracking, for example assign Onedrive to another container than Microsoft than MSoffice hosted somewhere. This could help avoid Cookie tracking from the same domain, that you use differently though.

Different Profiles should be used for different Browser configurations (Addons, hardening, DRM etc) or different users. Not different use cases of the same browser with the same configs by the same person.

Yes, please

  • do not talk about random stuff in here
  • do not write poems that are unrelated
  • stay at the topic
  • only write stuff if you know what you are talking about, please
1 Like

I wouldn’t go far as to say it will never happen, but you’re correct that this is a large lift. Essentially underneath the hood the chromium process model operates differently than how Firefox does which means implementing this is harder and requires more investigation.

This is definitely on our radar and I think there’s interest by a few people to see this get implemented but given its size we’d need to figure out how to prioritize it relative to other work happening.

Without having dug too deeply into this I can think of a few ways where we might be able to create “shadow profiles” and then layer on a differ UI. However, the concept of a profile has impact on a lot of browser preferences which would likely lead to side effects. One example is passwords in the password manager would not be shared across and requiring extra work.

The other idea is if people just want account management containers (e.g. logged into 2 accounts at the same time) we might be able to leverage the ephemeral storage, but then we may end up needing to create separate frame contexts for each in which case might needing to tamper with the origin to avoid other side effects. This usually means there may be implications with the security model around origins and all of the sudden this makes implementing this much harder.

Hopefully that gives some insight about how I’ve been thinking about it and so others can can understand the complexity of why this hasn’t been done yet.

1 Like

As a 10yr+ FF user I confirm that’s the best extension they offer and I haven’t switched to any other browser exclusively because of that extension. I signed up here just to vote +1 to the wait list


Thanks for this explanation. It’s good to know that people are listening and considering this.

1 Like

Maybe you can create a way for us to donate towards supporting this large lift?