Playwright Vs Cypress - A Detailed Comparison.pdf

Playwright is a modern, open-source, end-to-end testing framework developed by Microsoft. It allows developers to write tests that automatically navigate web applications, perform actions, and assert results.

1. Playwright Vs Cypress - A Detailed
Comparison

A high-end user experience can only be achieved by assessing and verifying the functionality of
an application. To identify potential problems with web software, various tools are available,
including the Cypress and Playwright testing frameworks. These tools help developers quickly
detect bugs, errors, and other issues that can negatively impact usability.
As a result, teams can deliver high-quality, reliable products that offer a consistent user
experience. If you aren't sure which end-to-end testing framework to choose for your
development projects, this blog will walk you through a detailed comparison of Playwright vs
Cypress, helping you decide which one suits your needs best.
What is Playwright?
Playwright is a modern, open-source, end-to-end testing framework developed by Microsoft. It
allows developers to write tests that automatically navigate web applications, perform actions,
and assert results.
Playwright is primarily written in and supports JavaScript (and, by extension, TypeScript). This
means it integrates seamlessly with most modern web development stacks and continuous
integration pipelines. This framework provides the ability to run tests across a range of

2. browsers, including Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit. This helps ensure compatibility and
consistent behavior across all major web platforms.
What is Cypress?
Cypress is a frontend testing tool built for the modern web. It offers a complete end-to-end
testing experience, providing developers and testers with tools to write and execute tests for
web applications.
Cypress is built on and supports JavaScript. It has out-of-the-box compatibility with popular
JavaScript frameworks and bundlers, making it a favorite among many frontend developers.
One of the distinguishing features of Cypress is its real-time, automatic reloading upon code
change. This feature enables developers to see test results instantaneously, accelerating the
test-debug cycle.
Before diving into how these differ and when you should leverage them, let’s hover over the
similarities between Playwright and Cypress.
Playwright: Benefits and Limitations
Playwright is a modern end-to-end testing framework built by Microsoft. It’s designed to help
teams write reliable browser automation tests across Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit using the
same API. While it’s packed with valuable features, like any tool, it comes with trade-offs.
Benefits of using Playwright:
●​Supports all major browser engines through a unified API, helping test compatibility with
minimal effort.
●​Comes with its test runner (@playwright/test), so there’s no need to set up external
frameworks.
●​Automatically waits for elements before performing actions, reducing flaky tests.
●​Offers multi-language support—JavaScript, TypeScript, Python, Java, and NET.
●​Simulates device settings, network conditions, permissions, and geolocation for more
realistic test coverage.
●​Allows parallel execution and works well in CI/CD environments.
●​Handles advanced selectors, including shadow DOM and iframes.
Limitations to keep in mind:
●​The ecosystem isn’t as large as Cypress’s, so plugins and community support can feel
limited at times.
●​The configuration may feel heavy for beginners or teams migrating from simpler tools.
●​Mobile testing is limited to browsers, and real device testing requires an external setup.

3. ●​It lacks a built-in visual dashboard for test debugging, which some teams may find
helpful.
●​Advanced workflows like custom fixtures or test distribution require more manual setup.
Cypress: Benefits and Limitations
Cypress is a widely used end-to-end testing framework designed specifically for modern web
applications. It runs directly in the browser, offering a fast, interactive way to write and debug
tests. It's especially popular among frontend developers due to its ease of use and visual
debugging tools. Like any framework, it has its strengths and limitations.
Benefits of using Cypress:
●​Easy to set up and get started—ideal for teams new to automated testing.
●​Provides a visual test runner that shows what’s happening in the browser step by step.
●​Automatically reloads tests as you make changes, speeding up development.
●​Strong debugging support through browser developer tools and detailed error
messages.
●​Great for writing tests in JavaScript or TypeScript using a simple, consistent API.
●​Comes with built-in assertions and stubbing/mocking capabilities.
●​Has an active community and a growing plugin ecosystem.
Limitations to keep in mind:
●​Only supports Chromium-based browsers (like Chrome and Edge) in its stable version;
Firefox support is still evolving.
●​Doesn’t support multiple browser tabs or windows in a single test, which limits some use
cases.
●​Focuses on web applications—no built-in support for mobile or native app testing.
●​Tests run inside the browser, which can introduce some limitations in simulating
real-world environments.
●​Limited multi-language support—Cypress is built for JavaScript only.
Primary similarities between Playwright and Cypress
Both Playwright and Cypress are emerging as top choices when it comes to end-to-end testing
frameworks for web applications. Despite their unique offerings, they share some core
similarities that make them stand out in the E2E testing landscape:
1. JavaScript-based: Both frameworks are primarily built around JavaScript. This ensures they
align well with modern web development practices and are easily adoptable by today's vast
community of JavaScript developers.

4. 2. Real-time feedback: Both tools focus on providing real-time feedback. As tests are
executed, developers get immediate insights into their test status, allowing for quick iteration
and bug fixing.
3. Browser support: Playwright and Cypress are designed to support multiple modern
browsers. This cross-browser compatibility ensures comprehensive test coverage, allowing for a
more holistic assessment of web applications.
4. Rich debugging capabilities: Both frameworks offer powerful debugging features. From
Playwright's ability to pause execution and inspect the browser's state to Cypress's
time-traveling debugger, these tools aim to simplify the often complex debugging process.
5. Interceptor capabilities: Both Playwright and Cypress have features to intercept and modify
network requests. This allows testers to mimic various backend responses or conditions,
ensuring the frontend behaves correctly under different scenarios.
6. DOM interaction: Handling and interacting with the Document Object Model (DOM) is crucial
for E2E tests. Both frameworks excel in this domain, offering intuitive commands and methods
to navigate, query, and interact with web page elements.
Playwright vs Cypress — The key differences
Test structure
● Playwright
Playwright follows the standard Jest-like pattern for structuring tests, using describe and its
blocks.
const { test } = require('@playwright/test');

test.describe('Feature XYZ', () => {
test('should display element on page', async ({ page }) => {
await page.goto('https://example.com' );
const element = await page.$('selector');
expect(element).toBeTruthy();

5. });
});
● Cypress
Cypress uses a unique chainable pattern to structure and write tests, which some developers
find more readable.
describe('Feature XYZ', () => {
it('should display element on page', () => {
cy.visit('https://example.com' );
cy.get('selector').should('be.visible');
});
});
Interacting with elements
● Playwright
Interaction is more straightforward, closely aligning with how developers typically engage with
web elements programmatically.
await page.type('input[name="username"]' , 'exampleUser');
● Cypress
Uses a more chained, jQuery-like syntax for element interaction.
cy.get('input[name="username"]' ).type('exampleUser');
Handling asynchronous code
● Playwright
Relies on JavaScript's native async/await syntax.
await page.click('button');
await page.waitForResponse(response =>

6. response.url() === 'https://api.example.com/data' &&
response.status() === 200);
● Cypress:
cy.click('button');
cy.wait('@apiCall'); // given that an alias 'apiCall' has been set up for
the XHR request
Assertions
● Playwright
const title = await page.title();
expect(title).toBe('Expected Title');
● Cypress
cy.title().should('eq', 'Expected Title');
Selectors
● Playwright
Playwright offers a range of selector engines to match elements. It combines CSS selectors,
text selectors, XPath, and others under a single unified API. This gives testers the flexibility to
use the most suitable selector type for their needs.
const button = await page.$('button.myButton');
const elementWithText = await page.$('text="Specific Text Here"');
const header = await page.$('//h1[@id="myHeader"]' );
const nestedElement = await page.$('css=div#parent >> text="Child Text"');
● Cypress
Cypress primarily leverages jQuery-based selectors, which means if you're familiar with jQuery
or CSS selectors, you'd feel right at home.

7. cy.get('button.myButton').click();
cy.contains('Specific Text Here').click();
cy.get('div#parent').find('button.childButton' ).click();
While Cypress doesn't directly support XPath out of the box, there are plugins available that add
this functionality. The jQuery-based approach is quite powerful, but those used to working with
raw CSS selectors or XPath might find Playwright's approach more flexible.
HeadSpin's integrations with automation frameworks for
E2E testing
HeadSpin's AI-driven Platform is designed to provide seamless mobile testing and monitoring
experiences. One of the ways it accomplishes this is by offering integration capabilities with
several popular automation frameworks for end-to-end (E2E) testing. By doing so, HeadSpin
ensures that developers and testers can utilize their preferred tools while benefiting from the
global device infrastructure and insights provided by HeadSpin. The Platform seamlessly
integrates with frameworks like Appium, Playwright, and many others. By offering these integrations, HeadSpin ensures that businesses can maintain their existing
testing practices while benefiting from the global insights and robust infrastructure that
HeadSpin provides. This combination is key to delivering high-quality applications that work
flawlessly for users everywhere.
Note: HeadSpin doesn’t yet support Cypress directly.
Playwright vs Cypress — The key differences
In the end-to-end testing landscape, both Cypress and Playwright have cemented their
reputations as robust tools, but choosing between them depends largely on your project's
specific requirements. Here's a compact guide:
When should you choose Cypress?
●​Ease of setup and use: You desire a testing framework that provides a fast and
straightforward setup with an intuitive UI, which is especially beneficial for teams new to
E2E testing.
●​Real-time reloading: You value real-time feedback during test development, with
Cypress automatically reloading tests upon file changes.
●​Rich ecosystem: You are looking to leverage an ecosystem of plugins and integrations
built around Cypress.

8. When should you choose Playwright?
●​Browser coverage: You require testing across multiple browsers, as Playwright supports
Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit.
●​Mobile emulation: You need mobile device emulation to test different device-specific
behaviors.
●​Advanced interactions: You're dealing with complex web apps that require sophisticated
interactions like file uploads, downloads, video recording, or network throttling.
Additionally, with Cypress, teams cannot test on real phones, which can be a hindrance.
Bottom line
In the rapidly evolving domain of software testing, both Playwright and Cypress have etched
their mark as formidable tools for end-to-end testing. Each boasts a unique set of capabilities
and strengths catering to a diverse testing requirement range. The optimal choice is not a mere
reflection of the tool's capability but an intersection of your project's intricacies, browser
preferences, and the granularity desired in your testing strategy. It's imperative to meticulously
assess your project's specifications, delve deep into the nuances of each framework, and then
make an informed decision that synergizes seamlessly with your overarching objectives.
Article Source:

This articles was originally published on:
https://www.headspin.io/blog/cypress-vs-playwright-comparison-guide