How do on‑device clearing tools like DuckDuckGo’s Fire Button compare to browser “clear browsing data” functions in Chrome and Firefox?

1. How they work: one‑tap purge vs layered controls

DuckDuckGo’s Fire Button is a deliberately simple, user‑facing affordance that “closes all non‑fire‑proofed tabs and delete[s] browsing data” in one action, designed to instantly burn a session on mobile or desktop beta builds ^{[5] [1]}. By contrast, Firefox’s built‑in clear browsing features let users manually or automatically clear history and related data on exit and expose more deliberate toggles for specific data types and permissions — a layered control model rather than an emergency extinguisher ^{[2] [4]}.

2. Scope: what gets deleted

Reports consistently state that DuckDuckGo’s Fire Button clears cookies, cache and open tabs and — in at least one review — bookmarks and saved cookies are affected by a full purge, although phrasing varies between reviews and may reflect product changes or reviewer interpretation ^{[1] [3]}. Firefox’s clearing tools are reported to cover history, cookies and caches and can be configured to run on exit, making their scope equivalent in kind but more explicit and configurable in practice ^{[2] [4]}.

3. Granularity and exceptions: the fireproof feature

A key behavioral difference is DuckDuckGo’s “fireproof” sites feature, which intentionally preserves logins and cookies for chosen domains when the Fire Button is used — a selective cleanup that prioritizes convenience for favored sites while wiping everything else ^{[3] [4]}. Traditional browsers like Firefox provide selective clearing via checkboxes and site‑level permissions for camera/location, but they do not use the same “one‑tap with whitelist” metaphor; instead they rely on multi‑setting configurations and extensions to approximate that workflow ^{[4] [2]}.

4. Defaults and automation: ease versus explicit control

DuckDuckGo’s design favors privacy by default on mobile: it erases cookies at close by default and offers the Fire Button as a fast manual action, which simplifies privacy hygiene for nontechnical users ^{[4] [6]}. Firefox, according to coverage, gives users the power to clear automatically on exit but also exposes more manual, granular choices and extension support for those who want to script or augment clearing behavior — appealing to users who need customization over simplicity ^{[2] [4]}.

5. Limitations and trade‑offs: what the reporting flags

Reporting warns that DuckDuckGo’s simplicity brings trade‑offs: limited extension support and mobile‑first design mean less customization and potentially different engine behavior than full desktop browsers, and local browsing history can persist on device until a Fire action is taken ^{[5] [7]}. Reviews also temper DuckDuckGo’s efficacy relative to more configurable privacy browsers such as Firefox or Brave, which may block different classes of trackers or integrate VPN/Tor options that DuckDuckGo lacks in the same way ^{[1] [5]}. Coverage differs on exact effects (e.g., whether bookmarks are removed in all builds), so some secondary claims may reflect reviewer error or version drift rather than consistent product behavior ^{[1] [3]}.

6. Practical takeaway: pick the right tool for the scenario

For quick, session‑level privacy on mobile or for users who want a single, memorable action to scrub a device, DuckDuckGo’s Fire Button delivers a clear UX with a usable exception model (fireproof) and privacy‑first defaults ^{[5] [4]}. For users who need fine‑grained clearing (time ranges, site permissions, extension‑driven automation) and deeper customization across desktop workflows, Firefox’s built‑in clear tools and extension ecosystem provide more control and explicit configuration options — a trade of convenience for precision that the reporting highlights ^{[2] [4]}. Where reporting is silent on cross‑device sync or exact bookmark behavior, further vendor documentation should be consulted before assuming parity.