Selenium vs Playwright

 

Below is the detailed comparison of Playwright and Selenium which are two popular open-source web automation tools.

Feature	Playwright	Selenium
Architecture	Modern, browser automation through WebSocket protocol	Traditional, uses WebDriver protocol
Languages Supported	JavaScript, TypeScript, Python, C#, Java	Java, Python, C#, Ruby, JavaScript, Kotlin, etc.
Browsers Supported	Chromium, Firefox, WebKit (Safari engine)	Chrome, Firefox, Safari, IE, Edge
Cross-browser Testing	Yes (via single API)	Yes (via WebDriver, requires separate drivers)
Headless Mode	Built-in for all browsers	Supported but configuration-heavy
Mobile Emulation	Built-in (Android/iOS simulation)	Supported via Chrome DevTools or Appium
Multi-tab/Context Support	Excellent (isolated browser contexts)	Limited (each tab requires handling in a new driver instance)
Auto-wait for Elements	Yes (automatic waiting for DOM/state readiness)	Manual waits often needed (e.g., WebDriverWait)
Screenshots/Videos	Built-in support for screenshots, videos, and traces	Screenshots supported, video needs external integration
Debugging Tools	Built-in tracing, time-travel debugging	Basic logs, stack traces, external tools needed for deep debug
Execution Speed	Faster (uses WebSocket and optimized browser contexts)	Slower (uses HTTP/WebDriver protocol)
Parallel Execution	Built-in support (workers, test sharding)	Needs external config (e.g., Selenium Grid, TestNG parallel)
Ease of Setup	Easy, single binary for all supported browsers	Complex, needs drivers for each browser
CI/CD Integration	Good support (GitHub Actions, Jenkins, etc.)	Excellent support and maturity

 

Final Take:

Use Playwright for modern, high-speed automation with features like auto-wait, parallel testing, and browser context isolation.

Use Selenium for broad browser compatibility (example: legacy IE), or if you already have a mature Selenium-based infrastructure.