Playwright vs Selenium: Two powerful tools, but which one truly leads the charge in modern browser automation?
Playwright vs Selenium
Explore the differences between Playwright and Selenium with a detailed breakdown of their features, architecture, advantages, and limitations.
Overview
Playwright and Selenium are two of the most popular tools for automating web browsers. While both serve similar purposes, they differ in many aspects, including browser support, speed, ease of use, and how they interact with the browser’s API.
Feature Comparison
Let’s take a look at how Playwright and Selenium compare on different aspects:
Playwright
Playwright is a next-generation automation library built to support modern web applications with built-in features to deal with various challenges faced during web testing.
- Supported Browsers: Chrome, Firefox, Safari, WebKit, Microsoft Edge (via Chromium)
- Execution Speed: Fast, with built-in mechanisms for auto-waiting and parallel execution.
- API Support: Modern API with built-in support for single-page apps (SPA) and heavy JavaScript-based websites.
- Cross-Browser Testing: Playwright is designed for cross-browser testing with a consistent API across different browsers.
- Network Interception: Offers network control like interception, modification, and mocking of network requests.
- Headless Mode: Playwright supports running tests in headless mode (no GUI) across all supported browsers.
- Test Isolation: Supports full isolation of test environments, allowing you to run multiple tests simultaneously with isolated contexts.
- Multi-Browser Support: In addition to major browsers, Playwright can also automate WebKit for Safari, and Edge.
- Auto-Waiting: Built-in auto-waiting, which automatically waits for elements to be ready, reducing manual waits and improving reliability.
Selenium
Selenium has been a go-to tool for browser automation for years. It supports multiple programming languages and offers extensive browser support, making it a tried-and-true option for web testing.
- Supported Browsers: Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Microsoft Edge, Internet Explorer, Opera
- Execution Speed: Slower than Playwright due to lack of built-in auto-waiting and performance optimizations.
- API Support: Provides support for traditional web applications, but may require additional libraries for modern web features like SPA testing.
- Cross-Browser Testing: Selenium provides broad cross-browser support, including legacy browsers like Internet Explorer.
- Network Interception: Selenium lacks built-in support for network interception but can integrate with third-party tools for such capabilities.
- Headless Mode: Selenium supports headless mode in certain browsers, but the configuration might not be as streamlined as Playwright’s.
- Test Isolation: Selenium does not have built-in support for test isolation, so you’ll have to manage environments and contexts manually.
- Multi-Browser Support: Supports all the major browsers but does not have WebKit (Safari) support without third-party drivers.
- Manual Waiting: Requires manual waiting and synchronization, which can increase test flakiness if not done properly.
In-Depth Comparison
| Feature | Playwright | Selenium |
|---|---|---|
| Browser Support | Chrome, Firefox, Safari, WebKit, Microsoft Edge | Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Internet Explorer, Opera |
| Speed | Faster due to optimized architecture and built-in waiting | Slower due to less optimization and manual waiting |
| API Design | Modern and consistent across browsers | Older and less consistent, but well-established |
| Headless Support | Full support across all browsers | Limited support and configuration complexity |
| Network Interception | Built-in support | Requires third-party integration |
| Parallel Execution | Easy to implement with isolation and context management | Manual setup required |
| Test Stability | More stable with auto-waiting | May require manual waits and synchronization |
| Community Support | Growing, with increasing adoption | Very large, well-established community |
| Use Cases | Modern web apps, single-page applications, mobile testing | Legacy apps, large-scale projects, cross-platform testing |
Advantages
Playwright
- Fast execution
- Built-in auto-waiting
- Modern API for complex applications
- Multi-browser support with WebKit (Safari)
- Better for modern web technologies
Selenium
- Wide adoption with a large community
- Broad browser support including legacy browsers
- Cross-platform support across many languages
- Ideal for large-scale, enterprise projects
- Extensive integrations and tools
You may also like to check: Playwright Automation Quick Start Guide
If the above comparison between Playwright and Selenium gone well with you, why not subscribe to our YouTube channel for more knowledge sharing and career updates.