StackShareStackShare
Follow on
StackShare

Discover and share technology stacks from companies around the world.

Follow on

© 2025 StackShare. All rights reserved.

Product

  • Stacks
  • Tools
  • Feed

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  1. Stackups
  2. DevOps
  3. Testing Frameworks
  4. Browser Testing
  5. Autify vs Playwright

Autify vs Playwright

OverviewComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Autify
Autify
Stacks12
Followers13
Votes13
Playwright
Playwright
Stacks613
Followers586
Votes81
GitHub Stars79.0K
Forks4.8K

Autify vs Playwright: What are the differences?

Autify and Playwright are both software testing tools that are used for automating web applications. However, there are several key differences between these two tools:

  1. Programming Language Support: Autify primarily supports JavaScript and is built on top of Puppeteer, a Node.js library. On the other hand, Playwright supports multiple programming languages including JavaScript, Python, and C#. This allows developers to write test scripts in their preferred language, making it more flexible for teams with diverse skill sets.

  2. Browser Compatibility: Autify supports testing on the Chrome browser only. Playwright, on the other hand, provides cross-browser compatibility and allows testing on Chrome, Firefox, and WebKit. This enables developers to ensure the compatibility of their web applications across multiple browsers.

  3. Parallel Test Execution: Autify allows parallel test execution, which means that multiple tests can be run simultaneously. This significantly reduces the overall test execution time, making it ideal for large-scale test automation. Playwright, however, currently does not have native parallel test execution support. Tests need to be executed sequentially, which may lead to longer test execution times for complex test suites.

  4. Visual Testing: Autify includes built-in visual testing capabilities, which allows developers to easily compare screenshots and identify visual regressions. Playwright does not have native visual testing support, although it can be integrated with third-party visual testing tools to achieve similar functionality.

  5. Test Recorder: Autify provides a test recorder feature, which allows testers to record their interactions with the web application and convert them into automated test scripts. This helps in quickly creating test scripts without writing code from scratch. Playwright does not have a built-in test recorder, and test scripts need to be written manually.

  6. Cloud-based Platform: Autify is a cloud-based platform, which means that the test execution and infrastructure management are handled by Autify's servers. This eliminates the need for setting up and maintaining the testing infrastructure. Playwright, on the other hand, is a framework that needs to be set up locally, requiring developers to manage the infrastructure themselves.

In Summary, Autify and Playwright differ in terms of programming language support, browser compatibility, parallel test execution, visual testing capabilities, test recorder feature, and cloud-based platform. These differences make each tool suitable for different testing scenarios and requirements.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs
CLI (Node.js)
or
Manual

Detailed Comparison

Autify
Autify
Playwright
Playwright

It is a software testing automation platform powered by AI. Autify helps in creating the Quality Assurance team to deliver the best version of their product in record time.

It is a Node library to automate the Chromium, WebKit and Firefox browsers with a single API. It enables cross-browser web automation that is ever-green, capable, reliable and fast.

No Coding Required; Maintenance by AI; Record a Test Scenario, Cross Browser Testing
Node library; Headless supported; Enables cross-browser web automation; Improved automated UI testing
Statistics
GitHub Stars
-
GitHub Stars
79.0K
GitHub Forks
-
GitHub Forks
4.8K
Stacks
12
Stacks
613
Followers
13
Followers
586
Votes
13
Votes
81
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 4
    Easy to use
  • 3
    Cross browser testing
  • 3
    Works flexibly for an SPA
  • 3
    Simplify
Pros
  • 15
    Cross browser
  • 11
    Open source
  • 9
    Test Runner with Playwright/test
  • 7
    Well documented
  • 7
    Promise based
Cons
  • 12
    Less help
  • 3
    Node based
  • 2
    Does not execute outside of browser
Integrations
Slack
Slack
CircleCI
CircleCI
Jenkins
Jenkins
Testrail
Testrail
No integrations available

What are some alternatives to Autify, Playwright?

BrowserStack

BrowserStack

BrowserStack is the leading test platform built for developers & QAs to expand test coverage, scale & optimize testing with cross-browser, real device cloud, accessibility, visual testing, test management, and test observability.

Selenium

Selenium

Selenium automates browsers. That's it! What you do with that power is entirely up to you. Primarily, it is for automating web applications for testing purposes, but is certainly not limited to just that. Boring web-based administration tasks can (and should!) also be automated as well.

Sauce Labs

Sauce Labs

Cloud-based automated testing platform enables developers and QEs to perform functional, JavaScript unit, and manual tests with Selenium or Appium on web and mobile apps. Videos and screenshots for easy debugging. Secure and CI-ready.

LambdaTest

LambdaTest

LambdaTest platform provides secure, scalable and insightful test orchestration for website, and mobile app testing. Customers at different points in their DevOps lifecycle can leverage Automation and/or Manual testing on LambdaTest.

Karma

Karma

Karma is not a testing framework, nor an assertion library. Karma just launches a HTTP server, and generates the test runner HTML file you probably already know from your favourite testing framework. So for testing purposes you can use pretty much anything you like.

Rainforest QA

Rainforest QA

Rainforest gives you the reliability of a QA team and the speed of automation, without the hassle of managing a team or the pain of writing automated tests.

WebdriverIO

WebdriverIO

WebdriverIO lets you control a browser or a mobile application with just a few lines of code. Your test code will look simple, concise and easy to read.

Puppeteer

Puppeteer

Puppeteer is a Node library which provides a high-level API to control headless Chrome over the DevTools Protocol. It can also be configured to use full (non-headless) Chrome.

TestingBot

TestingBot

TestingBot provides automated and Manual cross browser testing in the cloud. Make sure your website looks ok in all browsers.

Ghost Inspector

Ghost Inspector

It lets you create and manage UI tests that check specific functionality in your website or application. We execute these automated browser tests continuously from the cloud and alert you if anything breaks.

Related Comparisons

GitHub
Bitbucket

Bitbucket vs GitHub vs GitLab

GitHub
Bitbucket

AWS CodeCommit vs Bitbucket vs GitHub

Kubernetes
Rancher

Docker Swarm vs Kubernetes vs Rancher

gulp
Grunt

Grunt vs Webpack vs gulp

Graphite
Kibana

Grafana vs Graphite vs Kibana