If you are an automation tester or are thinking of implementing automation testing in your software development lifecycle, you’ve probably heard of the “Playwright vs. Puppeteer” debate.
Both these Node.js libraries are designed to facilitate browser automation for testing purposes, and they both do a fantastic job. Each comes with its own offerings and specific benefits, which makes choosing one a bit of a challenge, especially for first-time automation testers.
Additionally, since Puppeteer was created by the Chrome dev team (2017) and Playwright was built by Microsoft (2020), you can consider this an extension of the Google-Microsoft rivalry.
In this article, we’ll try to dive into the nature and difference between these two frameworks. By the end, you should have some insight into which of these options serves your team best when it comes to automating complex browser interactions.
Let’s start with obvious questions.
What is Playwright?
Developed by Microsoft, Playwright is an open-source Node.js library that enables automation of user actions in different browsers. It lets testers control Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit via a set of unified APIs.
This library facilitates end-to-end testing on different operating systems (Linux, Windows, macOS) and easily integrates with CI/CD tools (CircleCI, TravisCI, Jenkins) and testing frameworks (Jest, Jasmine, Mocha, etc.). It also supports multiple programming languages such as Java, Python, and .NET, making Playwright ideal for cross-browser automated tests.
In particular, Playwright stands out for its auto-wait feature, multi-page scenario management, and network activity control. Testers can use it to launch new browser pages or tabs, interact with web elements, and navigate between different pages or tabs. They can also control headless browsers for tests.
Key Features of Playwright
- Can scrape dynamic web pages.
- Offers an auto-waiting feature that helps interact with elements that are taking time to load or even disappearing elements. The program waits until an element appears and then proceeds with the next test steps.
- Allows test execution in both headful and headless (i.e., no UI) browser modes.
- Can take screenshots and generate PDF files (only in headless Chromium).
- Supported XPath and CSS selectors that identify elements on a web page for data extraction.
- Supports usage of proxies in tests.
- Records videos of tests for recording and debugging purposes.
- Supports asynchronous APIs for high-performance test execution and synchronous APIs for ease of scripting.
Why use Playwright?
- Ease of setting up
- Supports multiple browsers, OSes, and programming languages.
- Enables easy mocking and stubbing through network interception.
- Ideal for running non-JavaScript UI tests for websites.
- Enables the running of tests in parallel.
- Is known for speedy loading and execution.
- Testers can create small scrapers with a synchronous client and scale up by switching to more complex asynchronous structures.
Drawbacks of Playwright
- No support for data parsing.
- Incompatible with certain Edge and Chrome policies.
- No support for popular languages like Ruby, PHP, and Golang.
- No support for native mobile apps.
- Limited community support since the tool is relatively new.
What is Puppeteer?
Puppeteer was created by Google in 2018—Chromium developers in particular. It provides an API built specifically for Chromium-based browsers. It also has experimental support for Firefox but lacks native support for Edge.
Testers can use Puppeteer to take test screenshots, generate PDFs, scan single-page applications, render content, simulate inputs from mouse and keyboards, and scrape web pages. In particular, Puppeteer is useful for automating the filling of forms and user interaction on web pages.
Puppeteer enables testers to programmatically interact with browsers by using methods such as `.goto()` and `.type()`.
This versatile, browser-driven framework is excellent for web automation tasks, as it integrates effortlessly with other JavaScript-based frameworks.
Key features of Puppeteer
- Enables tests via controlling headless Chrome or Chromium browser instances.
- Downloads and uses Chromium by default.
- Only supports JavaScript and a non-official port for Python, Pyppeteer.
- Can run in a server environment without a GUI. Testers don’t have to wait for visual elements to load, which helps scrape large amounts of data quickly.
- Can capture and generate screenshots of web pages.
- Offers in-built selectors—XPath, text selectors, custom selectors—to find elements in a document or a webpage.
- Enables testing of Chrome extensions, but not in headless mode. This is because Chrome and Chromium extensions are designed to work with a GUI and have no headless mode.
Puppeteer Installation
First, install Node.js by downloading the latest version from the official website. Then, install Puppeteer using the command: npm install puppeteer
Why use Puppeteer?
- Offers debugging methods for easier troubleshooting.
- Integrates very well with Chrome and Chromium.
- It requires no setup if you have Node.js installed.
- Extensive community support, as the tool is older and has more active users.
- Uses the V8 JavaScript engine to translate JavaScript into machine code just before execution is triggered. This contributes to fast loading and execution times.
- Supported directly by the Chrome team.
- Provides the DevTools Protocol with an event-driven architecture, which makes it easier to monitor events like page loads and network requests.
Drawbacks of Puppeteer
- Primarily supports asynchronous operations.
- Primarily supports JavaScript, with an unofficial Python port (Pyppeteer).
- “Has limited cross-browser testing support, primarily working with Chrome and Chromium, and experimental support for Firefox.
Playwright vs Puppeteer: Similarities
Both Playwright and Puppeteer share the following similarities:
- Automate browsers programmatically.
- Scrapes dynamic and static content across multiple pages.
- Can integrate with proxy services to work around anti-scraping measures like CAPTCHAs and IP bans.
- Can automatically wait for elements before proceeding with the test steps.
- Can intercept networks in order to mock and stub requests.
- Integrates with Jest for parallel testing, though Puppeteer requires a more complex setup for this purpose.
- Capable of running performance tests, though Playwright offers more advanced features than Puppeteer.
Playwright vs Puppeteer: Differences
Playwright | Puppeteer |
Supports multiple browsers— Chrome, Firefox, and WebKit. | Supports Chrome and Chromium, though there is limited support for some other browsers. |
Can pose issues with maintaining and managing patches for Firefox and WebKit. Can impact long-term reliability. | Doesn’t usually encounter patching issues because it works with Chrome and Chromium (for the most part). |
Allows native mobile app testing. | Only enables web automation; no support for native mobile app testing. |
Supports multiple isolated browser contexts, which helps with parallel testing and test isolation. | Such support is limited, as the tool relies more on new browser instances. |
Offers advanced network interception with nuanced request/response handling | Supports basic network interception but is less flexible than Playwright |
Is built to better handle nested iframes | Often faces issues with nested iframes |
APIs are richer and more complex with features and tracing and debugging mechanisms. | Offers a simpler, lighter API that depends on community tools. |
Offers built-in features for tracing, taking screenshots on failure, and debugging. | Offers capabilities for basic debugging, primarily relying on the Chrome DevTools Protocol for debugging tasks. |
Larger file size due to it’s bundling of multiple browsers | Smaller file size as the tool only bundles Chromium by default |
Offers plugins like playwright-extra to prevent bot detection and enable human-like behavior. | Comes with plugins like puppeteer-extra-plugin-stealth to change headers, user agents, and hide a browser’s headless status. |
While the community is new, it is fast growing. Playwright compensates for a smaller community with detailed documentation. | Comes with an older, more extensive, and active community on communities like Stack Overflow. |
Playwright vs. Puppeteer: Which works better for web scraping?
Playwright
- With this tool, you have the advantage of cross-browser support, which helps extract more web data. It also supports multiple languages, providing multiple options to build a web scraper.
- Playwright works especially well for websites with aggressive anti-bot measures. Testers can use Firefox or WebKit engines to blend in.
- Allows scraping in multiple browser contexts within a single instance—a more efficient move than using multiple tabs.
- If the site to be scraped comes with nested iframes or complex DOMs or requires some kind of advanced network manipulation—changing requests or response payloads.
Puppeteer
- This library focuses solely on JavaScript, which limits its efficacy outside of Chrome and Chromium. However, since this is the most popular browser in the world, it still serves an important purpose.
- Since Puppeteer is designed by and for Chrome, it is the best option if you’re focusing on this browser, including headless Chrome and Chromium.
- Works faster than Playwright since it has fewer dependencies and is optimized primarily for Chromium.
- Its puppeteer-extra with stealth plugin is great for bypassing anti-bot guardrails.
Verdict
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to this rivalry.
- Playwright works better for scenarios that require advanced scraping capabilities, multi-browser support, and bypass bot detection by replicating different browsers.
- Puppeteer works better for scenarios that need simpler scraping of Chromium-based browsers, faster than usual.
Final Take
Again, in the larger context of software testing, there is no one right answer. The tool you choose will depend on:
- How complex your operations are
- How closely the tool must interact with the website in question
- How much data your project needs to extract.
Playwright’s support for multiple browsers, programming languages, and advanced web automation features, including mobile web testing, makes it a versatile choice for complex web scraping and cross-platform testing needs.
Puppeteer is the better bet if you’re working primarily with Chrome or Chromium, and have to wrap up tests within a shorter timeline. Its mature community and established technical architecture also make it appealing to new users.
Exception: If your team is already experienced with Playwright or Puppeteer, it’s best to stick with the tool they are familiar with. Both tools come with a moderately steep learning curve, so leveraging existing expertise will save valuable time and resources.
Choose real device testing with Testgrid
No matter which library you choose, your software testing project will be utterly incomplete without running said tests on real devices (desktop and mobile), browsers and OSes. This is easier said than done, especially if you do not have a financial warchest to buy and maintain hundreds/thousands of real devices of every description.
Testgrid solves this bottleneck by offering secure & scalable test infrastructure and hosting real mobile devices in the cloud or on-premise. With TestGrid, users can also perform end-to-end test automation, including AI-powered codeless testing, mobile app, cross-browser, visual UI testing, and more. Test any app/website at scale to ensure a flawless digital experience every time.
Testgrid offers hundreds of real mobile and desktop devices hosted on the cloud, on-premise, or even in a hybrid setup. Test everything from battery life, network strength, lighting conditions, UI rendering, responsive design, and more on real devices.
If you’re curious, may we invite you to a free trial of TestGrid?
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Which is better, Playwright or Puppeteer?
While Playwright is a newer and more all-encompassing solution, Puppeteer has its advantages too. The former is ideal for testing multiple browsers and leveraging advanced features for the same. The latter is your best choice when focusing on Chromium-based browsers. Puppeteer also works faster than Playwright, which may be a concern for many project timelines.
Which tool is “better” depends specifically on the project requirements and expertise of testers/developers involved in the project and expected completion timelines.
What are the disadvantages of Puppeteer?
While it is an excellent tool, Puppeteer is best used when dealing with Chromium-based browsers. It provides limited support for other browsers. It is more lightweight, but that is because it is best suited for simpler scraping and testing operations. It also provides basic features for network interception, as opposed to Playwright’s flexibility in this regard.
Puppeteer supports only asynchronous operations and is limited to JavaScript, which can restrict its usability in diverse environments.
Is Playwright better than Selenium?
Yes, in certain contexts.
Playwright is faster and faces lower latency as it controls browsers at a more granular level via DevTools protocols. It also runs tests across multiple browsers simultaneously with fewer dependencies and enables simulation of mobile devices and network strengths.
In Selenium, cross-browser testing is more complicated and requires the setting up of different WebDrivers. It is also slower to run in complex test scenarios because it uses the WebDriver API to interact with browsers, which involves more technical overhead.
Selenium, however, does support a broader range of programming languages, compared to Playwright.
Is Puppeteer better than Selenium for scraping?
Overall, yes.
Puppeteer is better for web scraping when you’re working with modern, JavaScript-heavy websites. It is also faster and provides better tactics for evading anti-bot measures.
- Puppeteer is faster since it directly uses the Chrome DevTools Protocol.
- Puppeteer has a modern API that is quite easy to use, especially for developers comfortable with JavaScript.
- Puppeteer provides support for headless Chrome and Chromium without requiring any extra configuration. Selenium requires additional setup and might still not be efficient.
- Puppeteer is better at getting past anti-bot systems with its stealth plugins. It also mimics human behavior more effectively. This is not the case with Selenium, as it uses WebDriver to interact with the browser.