Luxe Quality logo
Quality Assurance

Andrii Kravchenko, Automation Quality Assurance Engineer

Jan 24, 2024 14 min read

Playwright vs Selenium: Detailed Comparison In 2024

This article comprehensively compares two popular test automation frameworks, Playwright and Selenium. It highlights their distinct features, such as Playwright's unified API for browser interaction and faster execution, against Selenium's extensive browser support and language versatility. The piece discusses advantages like Selenium's broad community support and Playwright's modern capabilities while also noting challenges like Selenium's complex scripting and Playwright's limited mobile testing. Ultimately, it suggests the choice between them depends on project-specific needs, focusing on factors like performance, browser compatibility, and user expertise.

Playwright vs Selenium: Detailed Comparison In 2024

In our quest to explore the dynamic world of test automation frameworks, we focus on two prominent players: Playwright and Selenium. Recently, the Selenium testing framework was highlighted as one of the most popular and efficient frameworks in an insightful LambdaTest article that solidifies its status in automation tools. Is this the case? Let's delve into why Selenium leads in this list. Our article, leveraging our hands-on experience, seeks to delve deeper into a comparative analysis of Playwright vs Selenium. 

What are Test Automation Frameworks? 

Before we delve into the main topic of our article, Playwright vs Selenium, expanding your understanding of a test automation framework is essential. A test automation framework is a set of guidelines, tools, and practices to streamline the testing process. It provides a structured environment for automating and executing tests efficiently. Understanding these frameworks is imperative because they form the backbone of any automated testing strategy, influencing test script development, execution, and maintenance. These are the key advantages of using test automation frameworks: 

01

Structured Approach: They offer a systematic way to manage test processes, ensuring consistency across different testing scenarios. 

02

Reusability and Scalability: Frameworks enable scripts and data to be reused, allowing for scalability and flexibility in various testing environments. 

03

Integration Capabilities: These frameworks facilitate integration with multiple tools and platforms, broadening their application scope. 

04

Efficient Reporting: They provide robust mechanisms for reporting test results, aiding in prompt issue identification and coverage analysis. 

Understanding these advantages is vital for a comprehensive comparison of frameworks like Playwright and Selenium. 

Types of Test Automation Frameworks 

In software testing, selecting the right automated test framework is necessary for efficiency and success. Each framework type offers unique features and is tailored to specific testing needs. Understanding these differences is key to optimizing your testing strategy. 

Framework Type 

Primary Features 

Best Use Cases 

Additional Notes 

Linear Scripting Framework 

Direct, script-by-script approach with minimal reusability. 

Small-scale projects, quick tests. 

Easy to learn, but not scalable. 

Modular Testing Framework 

Divides tests into modules for specific functionalities. 

Projects needing modular, maintainable tests. 

Enhances test organization. 

Data-Driven Framework 

Separates test scripts from data for flexibility. 

Testing scenarios with various data sets. 

Requires good data management. 

Keyword-Driven Framework 

Utilizes keywords for actions, accessible to non-programmers. 

Projects prioritizing simplicity and readability. 

Can be combined with other frameworks. 

Hybrid Framework 

Combines features from different frameworks. 

Complex projects requiring flexible solutions. 

Offers customization and robustness. 

Behavior-Driven Development (BDD) Framework 

Integrates business requirements directly into tests. 

Enhancing communication between diverse teams. 

Fosters collaboration and clarity. 

Each automated test framework type serves a specific purpose, from handling simple, linear tasks to managing complex, data-driven scenarios. Choosing the right framework depends on your project's scale, complexity, and team expertise. Understanding these nuances enables a more informed decision-making process for optimal testing outcomes. 

Playwright vs Selenium: Detailed Comparison 

The choice between Playwright vs Selenium can significantly impact the efficiency and reliability of automated web testing. Both frameworks are widely used for automation testing but have distinct features and capabilities. Here's an objective comparison based on key criteria: 

Criteria 

Playwright 

Selenium 

Compatible Languages 

JavaScript, Python, C#, Java 

Java, C#, Python, Ruby, JavaScript, Kotlin 

Browser Support 

Chromium, WebKit, Firefox 

Chromium, WebKit, Firefox 

Operating System Support 

Windows, macOS, Linux 

Windows, macOS, Linux 

Architecture 

Uses a single API to run tests across all browsers 

Requires different drivers for each browser 

Prerequisites 

Installed language 

Browser driver and installed language 

Real Device Support 

Web and experimental support for Android automation 

Extensive, including mobile devices 

Community 

Growing rapidly, with active development 

Large, well-established, and diverse 

Execution Speed 

Generally faster due to single API use and parallel execution 

Varies based on browser drivers and execution environment 

Ease of Use 

Modern API, easier setup for new projects 

Requires more setup and configuration 

Cross-Browser Testing 

Simplified with consistent API across browsers 

More complex due to the different drivers 

Cloud Integration 

Supports popular cloud services for testing 

Extensive support for cloud-based testing services 

Documentation and Support 

Comprehensive and growing 

Very extensive and well-documented 

 Key Points of Comparison 

 Key Points of Comparison 
  • Playwright Automation vs Selenium: Playwright offers a more unified API for all browsers, which can simplify test writing, especially for modern web applications. On the other hand, Selenium's support for a wide range of languages and browsers makes it a versatile choice for diverse projects. 
  • Playwright vs Selenium Speed: Playwright generally offers faster execution times due to its streamlined architecture and parallel test execution capabilities. 
  • Selenium Automation Framework: Selenium is a robust and time-tested framework, offering extensive capabilities for web automation testing across various browsers and platforms. 
  • Testing with Selenium and Playwright Frameworks: Both frameworks provide comprehensive functionalities for automation testing. However, Playwright's modern architecture might be more suited for newer web applications, especially those heavily reliant on JavaScript. 

This comparison table provides an objective overview of Playwright and Selenium, highlighting their strengths and areas of suitability. It can guide developers and testers in choosing the most appropriate tool based on their specific project needs and requirements. 

Selenium vs Playwright: A Detailed Exploration of Pros and Cons 

Now, let's proceed to a more detailed analysis of these frameworks individually to form a more precise and more comprehensive understanding of them. 

Advantages of Using Selenium in Test Automation 

The comparison of Selenium vs Playwright isn't just about performance. It's also about community support and resource availability. Let's delve deeper into the advantages of using Selenium, exploring how it enhances the landscape of test automation with its unique features and capabilities. 

01

Open-Source Advantage: Selenium is a free, open-source framework that can be used and modified. This allows for greater flexibility and customization based on specific project needs. However, being open-source can also be a challenge in the long term. The ecosystem may face issues such as conflicting libraries or dependencies, requiring developers to be vigilant in managing their test environment. 

02

Broad Language Support: Selenium supports multiple programming languages like Java, C#, Python, Ruby, and JavaScript. This versatility allows teams to work in their preferred language, facilitating easier integration into existing development processes. When weighing Selenium vs Playwright, consider Selenium's wide range of language support, a feature highly valued in diverse development environments. 

03

Comprehensive Browser Compatibility: Selenium supports all major web browsers, including Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Internet Explorer, and Edge. This ensures that web applications can be tested across various browser environments, which is essential for thorough web testing. In the debate of Playwright vs Selenium, Selenium's extensive browser support is a key factor for many organizations. 

04

Extensive Community Support: With its well-established and large community, Selenium offers extensive resources for learning and troubleshooting. This includes a wealth of documentation, forums, and third-party resources, making finding solutions to common (and uncommon) challenges easier. 

05

Integration with Various Frameworks and Tools: Selenium can be integrated with numerous other frameworks like TestNG, JUnit for test management, and Jenkins/GitHub/GitLab/Bitbucket for continuous integration, enhancing its capability to fit into different stages of the software development lifecycle. 

06

Real Device and Cross-Browser Testing: Selenium supports testing on real devices and offers extensive capabilities for cross-browser testing, which is integral for ensuring the compatibility of web applications in real-world scenarios. 

07

Customization and Flexibility: While Selenium does not have a built-in mechanism to wait for conditions to become true (like waiting for page elements to load), it offers the flexibility to write custom wait methods. This can be seen as an opportunity for teams to tailor their test scripts precisely to their application's behavior, although it does require additional coding. 

08

Cloud Integration: Selenium's compatibility with cloud-based testing services like Sauce Labs and BrowserStack allows teams to run tests in various environments without requiring extensive in-house infrastructure. 

Example: Consider a scenario where a team is working on a web application that needs to be compatible across different browsers and operating systems. Using Selenium, they can write their test scripts in Python (a language they are already comfortable with) and integrate these tests into their CI/CD pipeline using Jenkins. Although they need to write custom methods for handling dynamic content or waiting for certain conditions, this gives them the control to fine-tune their tests to match the application's specific behavior. 

Disadvantages of Using Selenium 

Despite Selenium's popularity in test automation, it has notable disadvantages that become particularly evident compared to newer frameworks like Playwright. These issues can significantly impact the efficiency and simplicity of test automation processes. 

Verbose Methodologies

Selenium's methods are notably more lengthy and complex. For instance, a Java assertion with a wait in Selenium requires a custom method:

Java Example in Selenium

Meanwhile, Playwright accomplishes this in a single line: 

TypeScript Example in Playwright

Complex Click Actions

In Selenium, even a simple click action involves multiple steps and explicit waits: 

Python Example in Selenium

The Playwright simplifies this significantly.

Python Example in Playwright

Handling Click Options

Selenium's approach to handling different click actions like double clicks or right clicks is cumbersome, requiring manual creation of these options:

Python Method in Selenium

def click(self, wait=60, double_click=False, right_click=False): 
 self.wait_to_be_clickable(wait) 
 initial_handles = Browser.get_driver().window_handles 
 
 try: 
 if double_click: 
 actions = ActionChains(Browser.get_driver()) 
 actions.double_click(self.get_element()).perform() 
 elif right_click: 
 actions = ActionChains(Browser.get_driver()) 
 actions.context_click(self.get_element()).perform() 
 else: 
 self.get_element().click() 
 except Exception as error: 
 if "Other element would receive the click" in error.message: 
 self.scroll_into_center() 
 if double_click: 
 actions = ActionChains(Browser.get_driver()) 
 actions.double_click(self.get_element()).perform() 
 elif right_click: 
 actions = ActionChains(Browser.get_driver()) 
 actions.context_click(self.get_element()).perform() 
 else: 
 self.get_element().click() 
 else: 
 raise error

Integration Overload

Selenium's vast array of integrations, while beneficial, can be overwhelming and challenging to manage, particularly with frequent updates and changes in the web development landscape. 

Community and Documentation Issues

Although Selenium has a large and established community, the documentation can sometimes be outdated, and users may encounter non-functional or poorly maintained integrations.

These examples highlight the complexities and challenges of using Selenium, especially compared to more streamlined and modern frameworks like Playwright. These drawbacks can make Selenium less suitable for specific projects, particularly those that prioritize speed and simplicity in test automation. 

Advantages of Using Playwright 

01

Simplified Methods and Faster Performance: Playwright stands out for its simple methods, outpacing Selenium in speed. This efficiency is a significant boon for developers looking to optimize test execution time. 

02

Robust Documentation and Responsive Updates: The Playwright's documentation is comprehensive and user-friendly, and the framework frequently updates based on user feedback, demonstrating a commitment to continuous improvement. 

03

Modern and Versatile Framework: Playwright offers modern capabilities as a newer framework. Being a part of the Microsoft family adds to its reliability and future development prospects. 

04

Wide Testing Capabilities: Playwright supports native testing on web browsers, mobile web applications, and even API testing, though the latter is still evolving. It also experimentally supports Android applications. 

05

Headless Mode and Debugging Extensions: The framework operates in headless mode by default, which boosts test speed and conserves resources. For effective debugging, it integrates an extension with Visual Studio. Importantly, it offers the capability to automatically capture screenshots and videos when tests fail, providing clearer insights into issues. Additionally, it supports the use of Playwright's Trace Viewer, allowing for detailed tracing and analysis of test executions, further enhancing debugging effectiveness. 

06

Open-Source with Auto-Waiting Feature: As an open-source tool, Playwright is accessible and versatile. As exemplified in the code comparison provided, its auto-waiting feature adds to its user-friendly nature. 

07

Support for Popular Test Frameworks: Compatibility with testing frameworks like Mocha and Jasmine broadens its usability. 

08

Unique Page Object Model (POM) Structure: Its distinctive POM structure sets it apart from other frameworks, offering a unique approach to test automation scripting. 

09

Built-in Features and Simple Reporter: The need for additional downloads is eliminated, as most features are built in. Its reporting tool, though basic, is readily available and easy to use. 

Disadvantages of Using Playwright 

01

Documentation Limitations: While the Playwright's documentation is generally robust, it may only sometimes provide clear guidance for all scenarios, leading to potential confusion or missteps in test implementation. 

02

Restricted Mobile Browser Testing: Playwright's ability to test mobile browsers is currently limited to Android, which could be a drawback for projects requiring comprehensive mobile testing across various platforms. 

03

Isolated Testing Environment: All tests in Playwright are isolated, which, while beneficial for test independence and reliability, might pose challenges in scenarios where you need to run tests in a single browser context. 

In conclusion, Playwright offers a modern, efficient, and feature-rich environment for test automation, with unique advantages and a few limitations. Its simplicity, speed, and robust features make it a strong contender in test automation. However, certain aspects, like limited mobile browser testing and documentation gaps, require consideration depending on project needs. Understanding the differences in Playwright vs Selenium is crucial for testers aiming to optimize their automation strategies. 

Conclusions 

Navigating the test automation landscape, the choice between Playwright and Selenium presents a study in contrasts. Selenium automation tool, with its extensive browser support and robust community, remains a stalwart in the realm of automation tools, albeit challenged by verbose scripting and integration complexities. In contrast, Playwright emerges as a beacon of modernity under Microsoft's stewardship, offering streamlined methods, faster performance, and innovative features like auto-waiting. While it faces its hurdles, such as limited mobile browser testing, Playwright's agility and simplicity make it an attractive option for contemporary web applications. Ultimately, Playwright vs Selenium hinges on matching each framework's unique strengths to the specific demands and expertise of the project. 

Have a project for us?

Let's make a quality product! Tell us about your project, and we will prepare an individual solution.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the fundamental architectural and functional differences between Playwright and Selenium?

Playwright and Selenium differ primarily in their approach to browser interaction and test execution. Playwright offers a unified API that enables consistent behavior across all supported browsers, leading to more efficient test creation and execution, which is particularly beneficial for modern web applications. Selenium, with its diverse driver requirements for each browser, provides comprehensive cross-browser compatibility. This extensive support makes it suitable for projects that span a wide range of browsers and legacy systems, though it may add complexity regarding setup and maintenance. 

How does Playwright's performance compare to Selenium's test execution times?

Playwright generally exhibits faster test execution times compared to Selenium. This efficiency stems from Playwright's ability to run tests in parallel across different browsers and its optimized interaction with browser APIs. Selenium's performance can vary, often being slower, due to its reliance on different browser drivers and the overhead associated with more complex synchronization of test steps. 

What is the extent of Playwright's capabilities in mobile browser testing compared to Selenium?

Playwright's current capabilities in mobile browser testing are focused on Android platforms. This means while it can mimic mobile environments and test mobile web applications on Android, it does not support iOS browser testing. In contrast, Selenium offers a broader scope in mobile testing, supporting Android and iOS platforms, making it a more versatile choice for comprehensive mobile web application testing. 

In which scenarios does Selenium emerge as a more appropriate choice over Playwright?

Selenium is often the better choice for projects that demand extensive cross-browser compatibility, especially those involving older or less common browsers. Its compatibility with a wide range of programming languages makes it favorable for teams with varied technical backgrounds or projects integrating multiple languages. Furthermore, Selenium's mature ecosystem, with extensive community support and resources, can be decisive for projects requiring well-established practices and solutions. 

How do Playwright and Selenium differ in their approach to synchronizing and waiting for elements in test scripts?

Playwright simplifies test script creation with its auto-wait feature, which intuitively waits for elements to be available before executing actions, reducing the likelihood of flaky tests. This feature significantly eases the process of handling dynamic content and AJAX-loaded elements. On the other hand, Selenium requires explicit implementation of wait conditions, which gives the tester greater control and adds complexity to the test scripts. This approach demands a more in-depth understanding of timing issues and can lead to more verbose and complex test code. 

Recommended Articles