Playwright vs Selenium: A Detailed Comparison

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• 1. Overview of Playwright and Selenium
• 2. Architecture Comparison
• 3. Features Comparison
• 4. Performance
• 5. Ecosystem and Community
• 6. Use Cases
• 7. Sample Code Comparison
• 8. Conclusion

Introduction

When it comes to automated browser testing, both Playwright and Selenium are powerful tools that developers often consider. While Selenium has been a longstanding choice in the industry, Playwright is a newer tool gaining rapid adoption. In this post, we’ll compare Playwright and Selenium in terms of architecture, features, performance, and use cases to help you decide which one suits your needs.

1. Overview of Playwright and Selenium

What is Selenium?

Selenium is a popular open-source tool for automating web browsers. It supports a wide range of browsers and programming languages, making it a versatile choice for end-to-end testing.

What is Playwright?

Playwright, developed by Microsoft, is a modern end-to-end testing framework. It provides reliable and fast automation across multiple browsers with additional features that cater to modern web applications.

2. Architecture Comparison

Feature	Selenium	Playwright
Language Support	Java, Python, C#, Ruby, JavaScript, etc.	JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, C#, Java
Browser Support	Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Internet Explorer	Chromium, Firefox, WebKit (Safari engine)
Execution Mode	Remote WebDriver (client-server architecture)	Direct communication with browsers
Framework Design	Modular with third-party integrations	Unified library with built-in features

Key Takeaway:

• Selenium relies on WebDriver to interact with browsers, which introduces additional communication overhead.
• The playwright communicates directly with browsers, resulting in faster and more reliable executions.

3. Features Comparison

Feature	Selenium	Playwright
Automatic Waiting	Requires explicit waits or third-party libraries	Built-in auto-waiting for elements
Parallel Test Execution	Supported via TestNG, JUnit, etc.	Native support via configuration
API Request Handling	Limited	Built-in network interception and mocking
Shadow DOM Support	Partial	Full support
Cross-Browser Testing	Extensive	Limited to modern browsers
Mobile Emulation	Via browser-specific setups	Built-in emulation for devices

Key Takeaway:

• Playwright offers out-of-the-box features like auto-waiting, network mocking, and mobile emulation, making it ideal for modern web applications.
• Selenium’s strength lies in its extensive ecosystem and cross-browser support, including legacy browsers.

4. Performance

Speed

Playwright is generally faster than Selenium due to its direct communication with browsers. Selenium’s WebDriver architecture introduces additional latency.

Example:

• A basic test case to load a page and verify a title executes 30-50% faster in Playwright compared to Selenium.

Resource Usage

• Playwright’s lightweight design consumes fewer resources compared to Selenium, especially when running parallel tests.

5. Ecosystem and Community

Aspect	Selenium	Playwright
Age	Over 15 years	Released in 2020
Community Size	Large, with extensive documentation and forums	Growing rapidly
Integrations	Supported by many third-party tools	Built-in features reduce the need for integrations

Key Takeaway:

• Selenium’s maturity and larger community make it a safer choice for legacy projects or when third-party tool integrations are required.
• The playwright’s modern design and growing community cater to the needs of contemporary development workflows.

6. Use Cases

Scenario	Recommended Tool
Legacy browser support	Selenium
Modern web applications	Playwright
Extensive cross-browser testing	Selenium
Network mocking and API testing	Playwright
Mobile device emulation	Playwright
Existing Selenium ecosystem	Selenium

7. Sample Code Comparison

Login Test in Selenium (Python):

from selenium import webdriver
from selenium.webdriver.common.by import By

# Setup WebDriver
driver = webdriver.Chrome()
driver.get("https://example.com")

# Locate and interact with elements
driver.find_element(By.ID, "username").send_keys("user")
driver.find_element(By.ID, "password").send_keys("pass")
driver.find_element(By.ID, "login").click()

# Assert
assert "Dashboard" in driver.title

# Teardown
driver.quit()

Login Test in Playwright (JavaScript):

const { test, expect } = require('@playwright/test');

test('login test', async ({ page }) => {
  await page.goto('https://example.com');
  await page.fill('#username', 'user');
  await page.fill('#password', 'pass');
  await page.click('#login');
  await expect(page).toHaveTitle(/Dashboard/);
});

Key Differences:

• Playwright code is more concise due to built-in features like expect and auto-waiting.
• Selenium requires explicit waits and additional setup for assertions.

8. Conclusion

Both Playwright and Selenium are excellent tools, but they cater to different needs:

• Choose Selenium if you require extensive cross-browser testing, legacy browser support, or are working within an existing Selenium-based ecosystem.
• Choose Playwright if you value speed, modern features, and simplicity for testing contemporary web applications.

Your choice should depend on your project’s requirements and the trade-offs you’re willing to make. Which tool do you prefer and why? Let’s discuss this in the comments below!