Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
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.
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...
I've used both Protractor and Cypress extensively. Cypress is the easier and more reliable tool, whereas Protractor is the more powerful tool. Your choice of tool should depend on your specific testing needs. Here are some advantages and disadvantages of each tool:
Cypress advantages:
Faster
More reliable (tends to throw fewer intermittent false failures)
Easier to read code (handles promises gracefully)
Cypress disadvantages:
Cannot switch between browser tabs
Cannot switch to iFrames
Cannot specify clicks or keypresses explicitly as if a real user was interacting
Cannot move the mouse to specific co-ordinates
Sometimes has trouble switching between different top-level domains, so not good for testing external links
Cypress is a newer tool with less extensive documentation and less community support
Protractor advantages:
More powerful because it is Selenium-based - it can switch between tabs, it can handle external links to other domains, it can handle iFrames, simulate keypresses and clicks, and move the mouse to specific co-ordinates within the browser.
More extensive community support and documentation
Protractor disadvantages:
Slower and more brittle - in general there is a higher likelihood of cryptic and/or intermittent errors which may cause your tests to fail even though there is nothing wrong with your application
For highly experienced automation engineers, the fundamental "brittle" nature of Selenium can be worked around - it can be reliable but only if you really know what you are doing
Less graceful handling of promises - relies on async/await or .then to manage the order of execution. Therefore it is a bit harder to read the code.
Harder to set up, and the method of setup impacts its reliability. For example, a hub/node configuration where the selenium jar is on a different physical machine than the browser under test will cause unreliability in your tests. Not everyone knows about this type of thing, so it's common to find Selenium frameworks that are set up poorly.
It's probably better to use Cypress if
you're at a smaller company and have a close relationship with developers who can help write hooks or stubs in their code to assist your testing
you don't need to do things like switch between tabs or test links to external top-level domains
It's probably better to use Protractor if
You might need to switch between tabs or test external links to other domains within the scope of your framework
You want to use a more accurate simulation of how a real user interacts with a browser (i.e. click at this location, type these keys)
You're at a company where you won't have any support from developers in writing hooks or stubs to make their code more testable in a less powerful framework like Cypress
Please try Handow, the e2e tool basing on Puppeteer.
Gherkin syntax compatible
Chrome/Chromium orentied, driven by Puppeteer engine
Complete JavaScript programming
Create test suites rapidly without coding (or a little bit), basing on built-in steps library
Schedule test with plans and arrange stories with sequential stages
Fast running, execute story groups in parallel by multi-workers
Built-in single page report render
Cover page view, REST API and cookies test
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.
Pros of Cypress
- Open source29
- Great documentation22
- Simple usage20
- Fast18
- Cross Browser testing10
- Easy us with CI9
- Npm install cypress only5
- Good for beginner automation engineers2
Pros of Playwright
- Cross browser14
- Open source10
- Test Runner with Playwright/test9
- Promise based7
- Well documented7
- Execute tests in parallel5
- Integrate your POMs as extensible fixtures5
- API Testing5
- Capture videos, screenshots and other artifacts on fail4
- Python Support4
- Context isolation3
- Inbuild reporters html,line,dot,json3
- Fastest2
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Cypress
- Cypress is weak at cross-browser testing21
- Switch tabs : Cypress can'nt support14
- No iFrame support12
- No page object support9
- No multiple domain support9
- No file upload support8
- No support for multiple tab control8
- No xPath support8
- No support for Safari7
- Cypress doesn't support native app7
- Re-run failed tests retries not supported yet7
- No support for multiple browser control7
- $20/user/thread for reports5
- Adobe4
- Using a non-standard automation protocol4
- Not freeware4
- No 'WD wire protocol' support3
Cons of Playwright
- Less help12
- Node based3
- Does not execute outside of browser2