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. Testing Frameworks
  5. Playwright vs TestComplete

Playwright vs TestComplete

OverviewComparisonAlternatives

Overview

TestComplete
TestComplete
Stacks39
Followers60
Votes0
Playwright
Playwright
Stacks613
Followers586
Votes81
GitHub Stars79.0K
Forks4.8K

Playwright vs TestComplete: What are the differences?

Key Differences between Playwright and TestComplete

Introduction:

Both Playwright and TestComplete are popular automation testing tools used for web and mobile application testing. However, there are several key differences between them.

  1. Supported Platforms: Playwright supports multiple platforms like Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit, allowing developers to run tests on different web browsers. On the other hand, TestComplete is primarily used for Windows-based applications and supports various platforms like .NET, Java, and web applications.

  2. Programming Languages: Playwright supports multiple programming languages like JavaScript, TypeScript, Python, and C#, providing developers with flexibility in choosing their preferred language. In contrast, TestComplete uses its own script language called 'TestComplete Script,' which is similar to JavaScript but has its own syntax and features.

  3. Cross-Browser Testing: Playwright is designed to support cross-browser testing out of the box, providing features like parallel test execution, network interception, and consistent APIs across different browsers. TestComplete also supports cross-browser testing but with limited capabilities compared to Playwright, making it more suitable for testing desktop applications.

  4. Open-Source vs Commercial: Playwright is an open-source automation tool backed by Microsoft, which means it is freely available for usage and contributes to a vast community-driven ecosystem. On the other hand, TestComplete is a commercial tool provided by SmartBear, which comes with licensing and subscription fees.

  5. Headless Testing: Playwright supports headless testing, allowing tests to run in the background without a visible browser interface. This is particularly useful for running tests in environments like Continuous Integration (CI) servers or running tests in parallel. TestComplete also supports headless testing, but it requires additional configuration and setup.

  6. Ecosystem and Community: Playwright is relatively new compared to TestComplete, but it already has a growing community and ecosystem of plugins, integrations, and frameworks built around it. TestComplete, on the other hand, has been in the market for a long time and has a well-established community and ecosystem.

In summary, Playwright and TestComplete differ in terms of supported platforms, programming languages, cross-browser testing capabilities, open-source vs commercial licensing, headless testing support, and community ecosystem.

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

TestComplete
TestComplete
Playwright
Playwright

It is an automated UI testing tool that makes it fast and easy to create, maintain, and execute functional tests across desktop, web, and mobile applications. With TestComplete, you can increase test coverage and ensure you ship high-quality, battle-tested software

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.

Building Automated UI Tests; Object Recognition Engine now with Artificial Intelligence; HTML5 Test Automation; Data-Driven Testing; Automated Test Reporting & Analysis
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
39
Stacks
613
Followers
60
Followers
586
Votes
0
Votes
81
Pros & Cons
No community feedback yet
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
Jenkins
Jenkins
Git
Git
Visual Studio
Visual Studio
Jira
Jira
Bugzilla
Bugzilla
No integrations available

What are some alternatives to TestComplete, 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.

Robot Framework

Robot Framework

It is a generic test automation framework for acceptance testing and acceptance test-driven development. It has easy-to-use tabular test data syntax and it utilizes the keyword-driven testing approach. Its testing capabilities can be extended by test libraries implemented either with Python or Java, and users can create new higher-level keywords from existing ones using the same syntax that is used for creating test cases.

Karate DSL

Karate DSL

Combines API test-automation, mocks and performance-testing into a single, unified framework. The BDD syntax popularized by Cucumber is language-neutral, and easy for even non-programmers. Besides powerful JSON & XML assertions, you can run tests in parallel for speed - which is critical for HTTP API testing.

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.

Cucumber

Cucumber

Cucumber is a tool that supports Behaviour-Driven Development (BDD) - a software development process that aims to enhance software quality and reduce maintenance costs.

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