7 Best Autofill Extensions for Chrome We Tested in 2026

FillKeep — best for reusable profiles and teachable form workflows

FillKeep takes a controlled approach to repetitive form filling.

You save information you regularly reuse, organize it into profiles, fill matching empty fields, and use Teach FillKeep when a recurring field needs an explicit association.

The basic flow is:

1. Save your information.
2. Choose the appropriate profile.
3. Fill the current form.
4. If a field is left unfilled, teach FillKeep which saved information belongs there.

That makes FillKeep especially useful when forms contain a mixture of familiar fields and workflow-specific information.

For example, a form might contain:

• First name
• Last name
• Email
• Phone
• Company
• Customer ID

The common fields can often be recognized directly. If Customer ID is not, the user can teach the association and reuse it later for that profile and site.

What we liked

The main action is easy to understand.

The active profile and Fill Current Form action are prominent, so normal use does not require navigating through advanced settings.

Teach is explicit rather than magical.

Instead of assuming the extension will correctly guess every unusual field, the user can define what belongs there.

Profiles make repeated contexts manageable.

Work, Personal, clients, or other recurring sets of information can stay separate.

Custom Information expands beyond standard contact fields.

Recurring values such as customer IDs or internal references can be stored and reused.

Existing values are preserved.

FillKeep is designed to fill matching empty fields rather than blindly overwrite information already entered.

What to know

FillKeep's current version focuses on predictable form filling rather than trying to automate an entire business process.

It does not currently offer cloud sync, shared team libraries, or full workflow automation.

That is intentional for the current product stage, but it does not define the long-term ceiling of the product.

The broader direction is to build from reusable autofill toward increasingly capable form workflows while keeping the experience understandable:

Teach it once. Fill it consistently.

Best for

People who repeatedly use real information across forms and want more control than browser autofill without starting with a complex rule engine.

Learn more about FillKeep

Fill Hero — best for AI-assisted autofill

Fill Hero approaches the same problem very differently.

Rather than requiring a rigid profile first, it lets you paste information in free-form text and uses AI to interpret the content and match it to fields.

For example, instead of separately configuring every detail, you can provide a block of information and ask Fill Hero to determine where it belongs.

Its current product positioning emphasizes AI-powered context interpretation, free-form text, multiple templates, and one-click form filling.

What we liked

The experience can feel almost magical.

Once you understand the interaction, being able to paste information and let the system interpret a form removes a lot of setup.

This approach is especially attractive when:

• the source information is already available as text;
• the forms change;
• you do not want to manually map everything;
• you are comfortable letting AI infer relationships.

Trade-off

The same quality that makes AI filling appealing can also make it less deterministic.

Some users want:

“Look at this information and figure out where everything goes.”

Others prefer:

“I know exactly what belongs here. Remember this relationship.”

Those are different philosophies.

Best for

Users who value AI interpretation and minimal upfront structure more than explicit field-by-field control.

Lightning Autofill — best for advanced rules and power users

Lightning Autofill is at the opposite end of the spectrum from minimalist autofill tools.

Its feature set includes form filling, automation, macros, text expansion, snippets, random data generation, and form recovery.

When we tested it, the amount of control was immediately apparent.

So was the learning curve.

What we liked

If you are willing to learn the system, Lightning offers significantly more control than a basic profile-based form filler.

It is appealing for users who want:

• detailed rules;
• advanced matching;
• macros;
• repetitive action automation;
• text snippets;
• sophisticated configurations.

Trade-off

The interface and concepts can be intimidating for someone whose goal is simply:

“Save these details and fill this form.”

This is not necessarily a flaw. Power tools often require more configuration because they expose more capability.

It simply means Lightning and simpler form fillers serve different users.

Best for

Power users who are comfortable configuring rules and want an established, highly configurable automation tool.

QuickForm — best for recording recurring forms

QuickForm's central promise is easy to understand:

Record a form once, then reuse it later.

Its product positioning emphasizes one-click autofill, recording forms, and compatibility with dynamic applications and internal tools.

That approach is interesting because it shifts the mental model.

Instead of primarily asking:

“What does this field mean?”

QuickForm can focus more on:

“Remember what I did on this form.”

What we liked

The record/reuse concept has strong potential for forms that are completed repeatedly in similar environments.

It also pushes beyond ordinary browser autofill toward form automation, which is a broader and commercially interesting category.

Trade-off

In our first-use testing, the workflow felt less immediately obvious than the marketing promise.

We encountered more friction understanding what to do next than with the simplest one-click tools.

That may matter less once a user has learned the product.

Best for

Users who regularly work with the same or similar complex forms and prefer a record-and-replay approach.

Fake Filler — best for developers and testers

Fake Filler solves a different problem from most of the extensions in this list.

It is not primarily designed to reuse your real personal or business information.

It fills forms with generated fake or dummy data.

Its product positioning targets developers and testers and emphasizes randomized names, emails, phone numbers, and other test values.

What we liked

The first-use experience is excellent.

If you are testing a form and just need valid-looking data in every field, there is very little to understand.

Click, fill, test.

That simplicity comes from having a very specific job to do.

Why it is different

Fake Filler and FillKeep may both fill forms, but they solve almost opposite problems.

Fake Filler:

“Give me realistic disposable data so I can test this form.”

FillKeep:

“Reuse the actual information I repeatedly need in my workflow.”

Best for

Developers, QA teams, designers, and anyone who needs to test forms with dummy data.

Easy Autofill — best for straightforward saved profiles

Easy Autofill is another profile-based approach.

Its product positioning focuses on saving form data, filling it with one click, secure storage, profiles, and additional form controls.

What we liked

The product idea is straightforward:

save information and reuse it across forms.

That is easier to understand than a full rule engine.

Trade-off

During our testing, the path to the first successful fill was not as immediately obvious as we expected, and the product places noticeable emphasis on its paid offering.

Neither point makes the extension unusable, but first-use clarity matters in a category where users expect autofill to feel instant.

Best for

Users who want a profile-oriented form filler and are comfortable with its paid model and workflow.

AutoFill Forms — best for established rule-based profiles

AutoFill Forms combines multiple profiles with more configurable matching and rule-oriented capabilities.

Its product positioning includes creating or updating profiles from filled forms, regular-expression-based values, random value generation, and multiple-profile management.

This places it somewhere between a simple profile filler and a more advanced power-user tool.

What we liked

There is substantial flexibility for users who want more than fixed contact fields.

Creating profiles from information already entered into forms can also reduce setup effort in the right workflow.

Trade-off

Greater configurability means more concepts to understand.

Its interface and workflow also feel more traditional than newer extensions designed around highly simplified onboarding.

Best for

Users who want multiple profiles plus configurable rules and do not mind spending time learning the system.