Cypress vs Playwright

Overview

Cypress

Stacks3.5K

Followers2.0K

Votes115

GitHub Stars49.4K

Forks3.4K

Playwright

Stacks616

Followers587

Votes81

GitHub Stars79.0K

Forks4.8K

Cypress vs Playwright: What are the differences?

Introduction: Cypress and Playwright are two popular automation testing tools used for web application testing. They both have their own unique features and capabilities that make them suitable for different use cases.

Browser Support: In terms of browser support, Cypress is limited to testing in Chrome-based browsers only, such as Chrome, Edge, and Electron. On the other hand, Playwright supports cross-browser testing in multiple browsers including Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Microsoft Edge.
Programming Languages: Cypress uses JavaScript as its primary programming language for writing test scripts, whereas Playwright offers support for multiple programming languages like JavaScript, TypeScript, and Python. This allows developers to choose the language they are most comfortable with for test automation.
Execution Speed: Cypress is known for its faster execution speed compared to Playwright. Cypress runs tests in the same browser where the application is being tested, which leads to quicker test execution times. Playwright, on the other hand, runs tests in parallel across multiple browsers, which can result in longer execution times.
Community and Documentation: Cypress has a larger community and well-documented resources compared to Playwright. This makes it easier for developers to find solutions to common problems, troubleshoot issues, and stay updated with the latest features. Playwright, being a newer tool, has a smaller community but is growing steadily.
Visual Testing: Playwright has built-in support for visual testing, allowing users to validate the visual aspects of web applications. This feature is not available in Cypress, which means developers have to rely on third-party tools or plugins for visual testing.
Headless Mode: Playwright offers headless mode testing in all supported browsers, enabling users to run tests without a visible browser interface. While Cypress also supports headless testing, it requires additional configuration and setup to achieve the same functionality.

In Summary, the key differences between Cypress and Playwright lie in their browser support, programming languages, execution speed, community support, visual testing capabilities, and headless mode functionality.

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)

Manual

Advice on Cypress, Playwright

Dane

Feb 7, 2020

Needs adviceon

Cypress

Jest

As we all know testing is an important part of any application. To assist with our testing we are going to use both Cypress and Jest. We feel these tools complement each other and will help us get good coverage of our code. We will use Cypress for our end to end testing as we've found it quite user friendly. Jest will be used for our unit tests because we've seen how many larger companies use it with great success.

836k views836k

Comments

Yildiz

testmanager/automation tester at medicalservice

May 12, 2020

Needs adviceon

AngularJS

TypeScript

Cypress

In the company I will be building test automation framework and my new company develops apps mainly using AngularJS/TypeScript. I was planning to build Protractor-Jasmine framework but a friend of mine told me about Cypress and heard that its users are very satisfied with it. I am trying to understand the capabilities of Cypress and as the final goal to differentiate these two tools. Can anyone advice me on this in a nutshell pls...

277k views277k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

Cypress	Playwright
Cypress is a front end automated testing application created for the modern web. Cypress is built on a new architecture and runs in the same run-loop as the application being tested. As a result Cypress provides better, faster, and more reliable testing for anything that runs in a browser. Cypress works on any front-end framework or website.	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.
Time Travel; Debuggability; Automatic Waiting; Spies, Stubs, and Clocks; Network Traffic Control; Consistent Results; Screenshots and Videos	Node library; Headless supported; Enables cross-browser web automation; Improved automated UI testing
Statistics
GitHub Stars 49.4K	GitHub Stars 79.0K
GitHub Forks 3.4K	GitHub Forks 4.8K
Stacks 3.5K	Stacks 616
Followers 2.0K	Followers 587
Votes 115	Votes 81
Pros & Cons
Pros 29 Open source 22 Great documentation 20 Simple usage 18 Fast 10 Cross Browser testing Cons 21 Cypress is weak at cross-browser testing 14 Switch tabs : Cypress can'nt support 12 No iFrame support 9 No page object support 9 No multiple domain support	Pros 15 Cross browser 11 Open source 9 Test Runner with Playwright/test 7 Promise based 7 Well documented Cons 12 Less help 3 Node based 2 Does not execute outside of browser

What are some alternatives to Cypress, Playwright?

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 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

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.

Mocha

Mocha is a feature-rich JavaScript test framework running on node.js and the browser, making asynchronous testing simple and fun. Mocha tests run serially, allowing for flexible and accurate reporting, while mapping uncaught exceptions to the correct test cases.

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.

Jasmine

Jasmine is a Behavior Driven Development testing framework for JavaScript. It does not rely on browsers, DOM, or any JavaScript framework. Thus it's suited for websites, Node.js projects, or anywhere that JavaScript can run.

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.

Jest

Jest provides you with multiple layers on top of Jasmine.

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.

CodeceptJS

It is a modern end to end testing framework with a special BDD-style syntax. The test is written as a linear scenario of user's action on a site. Each test is described inside a Scenario function with I object passed into it.

Related Comparisons

Cypress vs Playwright: What are the differences?

Browser Support: In terms of browser support, Cypress is limited to testing in Chrome-based browsers only, such as Chrome, Edge, and Electron. On the other hand, Playwright supports cross-browser testing in multiple browsers including Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Microsoft Edge.
Programming Languages: Cypress uses JavaScript as its primary programming language for writing test scripts, whereas Playwright offers support for multiple programming languages like JavaScript, TypeScript, and Python. This allows developers to choose the language they are most comfortable with for test automation.
Execution Speed: Cypress is known for its faster execution speed compared to Playwright. Cypress runs tests in the same browser where the application is being tested, which leads to quicker test execution times. Playwright, on the other hand, runs tests in parallel across multiple browsers, which can result in longer execution times.
Community and Documentation: Cypress has a larger community and well-documented resources compared to Playwright. This makes it easier for developers to find solutions to common problems, troubleshoot issues, and stay updated with the latest features. Playwright, being a newer tool, has a smaller community but is growing steadily.
Visual Testing: Playwright has built-in support for visual testing, allowing users to validate the visual aspects of web applications. This feature is not available in Cypress, which means developers have to rely on third-party tools or plugins for visual testing.
Headless Mode: Playwright offers headless mode testing in all supported browsers, enabling users to run tests without a visible browser interface. While Cypress also supports headless testing, it requires additional configuration and setup to achieve the same functionality.

Cypress vs Playwright

Overview