Puppeteer has been the go-to solution for many developers since its introduction in 2017 when it comes to browser based test automation, thanks to its robust features and user-friendly approach. However, in recent years Microsoft developed and released Playwright, which aims to simplify browser automation and provide a more comprehensive solution for various testing scenarios.
In this article, I will compare Playwright and Puppeteer, highlighting their similarities, differences, strengths, and weaknesses. The goal is to equip you with the essential insights to make an informed decision on which tool best aligns with your project requirements and development needs.
Overview of Playwright and Puppeteer
Playwright is an open-source Node.js library developed by Microsoft that enables developers to automate browser actions and interactions for testing and scraping purposes. It supports multiple browser engines, including Chromium, Firefox and WebKit, allowing for seamless cross-browser testing. Playwright provides an easy-to-use API and a robust set of features, making it a go-to choice for many developers.
On the other hand, Puppeteer is a Node.js library created by the Chrome team at Google. Like Playwright, Puppeteer is designed for automating browser actions and interactions, but it primarily focuses on the Chromium browser engine. Puppeteer boasts a user-friendly API and a strong feature set, making it a popular choice for web automation and testing tasks since the time it came out in 2017.
Similarities
Playwright is written and maintained by people who had earlier worked in Puppeteer and then moved to Microsoft so there are obvious similarities.
Both tools provide a comprehensive API for automating browser interactions, such as clicking buttons, filling out forms, and navigating pages. There is also headless browser support, allowing developers to run tests and automate tasks without the need for a visible browser window. Both tools can capture screenshots of web pages or generate PDF files, making it easy to save visual representations of a site’s content. In both Puppeteer and Playwright, developers can intercept and modify network requests and responses, providing greater control over the testing environment. Both allow execution of JavaScript within the context of the web page as well, enabling developers to interact with and modify the DOM as needed.
Differences Between Playwright and Puppeteer
Despite their obvious similarities and similar goals, Playwright and Puppeteer have some key differences that set them apart:
Browser Support: One of the most significant differences between the two tools is their browser support. Playwright provides out-of-the-box support for Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit, facilitating cross-browser testing. In contrast, Puppeteer primarily focuses on the Chromium browser engine, with limited support for Firefox and no native support for WebKit.
Selector Engine: Playwright offers a more advanced selector engine compared to Puppeteer. It supports a variety of selector types, including CSS, XPath, and text-based selectors, while Puppeteer mainly relies on CSS and XPath selectors. This can make it easier to target specific elements on a web page with Playwright.
Multiple Contexts and Pages: Playwright allows developers to work with multiple browser contexts and pages simultaneously, enabling more complex testing scenarios. Puppeteer, on the other hand, has limited support for managing multiple contexts and pages, making it more challenging to handle intricate test cases.
Auto-Waiting Mechanism: Playwright features an advanced auto-waiting mechanism that automatically waits for elements to become available before performing actions. This can help to reduce the need for manual timeouts and improve the stability of tests. Puppeteer lacks this advanced auto-waiting functionality, requiring developers to rely more on manual timeouts and workarounds.
Accessibility Testing: Playwright has built-in support for accessibility testing, allowing developers to verify that their web applications meet accessibility standards. Puppeteer does not have native support for accessibility testing, requiring additional tools or libraries to perform such tests.
When to select Playwright:
➕ You need to test across multiple browsers, as Playwright offers out-of-the-box support for Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit.
➕ You have complex testing scenarios that involve multiple browser contexts or pages, which Playwright handles more effectively.
➕ You prefer advanced element selection capabilities, as Playwright provides a versatile selector engine.
➕ You value stability and automatic waiting mechanisms, which are built into Playwright and help reduce flakiness in tests.
➕ Accessibility testing is a priority, as Playwright offers built-in support for this feature.
When to Choose Puppeteer:
Puppeteer might be the better solution if:
➕ You mainly target the Chromium browser engine and don’t require extensive cross-browser testing.
➕ You or your team have prior experience with Puppeteer or an existing codebase that leverages it, making it more efficient to continue using the tool.
➕ You have simpler test cases that don’t require managing multiple browser contexts or pages, which Puppeteer handles with some limitations.
➕ Your project relies on Chrome-specific features or APIs, as Puppeteer’s close integration with the Chromium browser engine ensures better compatibility and support.