Comparing Top Open-Source Test Automation Frameworks: Selenium, Cypress, and Playwright

Limitations represents the known weaknesses or constraints regarding the testing framework that could influence the performance and potential of the project.

Why it matters: Having a deep understanding of the framework limitations is helpful in avoiding future issues and challenges encouraging advance planning for workarounds and setting expectations from the beginning, ensuring a greater project execution.

→ Selenium

• Steep learning curve for beginners.
• Slower execution of tests as compared to modern frameworks.
• Additional setup and libraries needed to access advanced functioning such as visual testing or parallel execution.

→ Cypress

• Limited only to JavaScript and TypeScript.
• Does not provide native multi-tab testing (workaround is required).
• Less efficient in cross-browser testing since primarily focused on Chromium-based browsers.

→ Playwright

• Newer framework and comparatively lesser community than Selenium.
• Less documentations and integrations in comparison to the older ones.
• Needs Node.js knowledge, since tightly coupled with JavaScript.

When selecting a testing framework, important factors such as team proficiency, testing requirements, and project size should be considered, as they can influence the decision by offering insights into project complexity, technical expertise, and testing scenarios.

Why it matters: Each project has its own requirements and guidelines, which should be reflected in the testing framework to ensure a good balance and maintainability in the long run.

For framework selection, we can consider the following aspects:

• Team proficiency: Is your team technically skilled in JavaScript, or do you need a multi-language compatible framework?
• Test requirement: Is strong cross-browser capability needed, or is a single browser enough?
• Project size: A larger project with a variety of needs would benefit from the maturity of Selenium, while smaller, more focused projects might find Cypress or Playwright more nimble.

Pricing involves the costs associated with access to the testing framework, extensions, licenses, maintenance infrastructure, and support that need to be taken in consideration.

Why it matters: Even if the framework is open source, it can come with hidden costs and limitations over time that can affect the initial planning and create some challenges along the way. Evaluating pricing ensures that the framework is a good fit for the project and adheres to budget constraints without requiring compromises.

→ Selenium

Since Selenium is open-source, there is no cost for the framework itself, except for potential additional charges that may arise from integrating it with third-party tools for advanced functionality.

→ Cypress

Cypress is free for the usual workings. Paid options offer additional features like analytics and test insights in the Cypress Dashboard.

Writing and running tests are free, however, team management, analytics and integrations features may require a paid plan.

→ Playwright

Playwright is also free and open-source, with Microsoft offering enterprise support for teams that require it.

Integrations refer to the framework ability to work flawlessly with other important tools such as CI/CD systems or cloud services.

Why it matters: A framework with strong integration properties enhances the testing process by reducing the manual factor, increasing the team productivity, and promoting faster release cycles.

→ Selenium

A lot of integration possibilities are provided by Selenium with CI/CD tools, cloud testing platforms, and libraries to perform extended functionality. TestNG and JUnit are added to maximize its ability.

→ Cypress

For most CI/CD tools, Cypress has built-in support and integrates pretty well with tools such as Jenkins, CircleCI, and GitHub Actions. Additionally, a rich ecosystem of plugins facilitates custom integrations.

→ Playwright

Playwright is perfectly integrated into all contemporary CI/CD platforms and cloud testing services. Its feature of emulating various devices and geolocation adds further flexibility.

Community support measures the activity and size of the active user and developer community around the testing framework.

Why it matters: A strong community offers valuable insights into various scenarios, and having a solid knowledge base is crucial for quick troubleshooting, extensions, and future scalability of the project. Additionally, it plays a key role in reflecting the framework’s ability to be updated and maintained.

→ Selenium

• Vast and active community with a lot of resource available, forums, and third-party plugins.
• Very well maintained over the years and regularly updated.

→ Cypress

• Growing really fast with active forums and a lot of tutorials.
• Strong documentation by the Cypress team with active participation.

→ Playwright

• Smaller but on the upward trend growing community.
• Backed by Microsoft for further power on development support.

Documentation accompanies the framework providing a better understanding of the features and its potential, helping users to master the framework and use it to the maximum.

Why it matters: High quality documentation encourages the team to learn faster, troubleshoot more efficiently and follow best practices, thereby reducing the learning curve and accelerating the overall progress of the project.

→ Selenium

Vastly different volumes of documentation, but sometimes reforming can be a little difficult because of complex framing.

→ Cypress

Very detailed and beginner-friendly documentation with examples and how-to guides for common situations.

→ Playwright

Concise and precise documentation which focuses on practical use cases. Guides to this documentation are developer-focused toward modern application testing.

Returning to the example with the client from the start of the article, and considering the criteria comparison presented, we can outline the following reasons that support the recommendation of Playwright as the most suitable framework for the client’s needs:

• Playwright supports both UI and API testing, simplifying the automation process and allowing tests to be developed in parallel with the application features.
• Unlike Selenium, which requires advanced C# knowledge to build a custom API testing framework, Playwright offers built-in functionality, significantly reducing implementation effort.
• Playwright enables multi-browser testing out of the box, without the need for additional configuration or browser-specific drivers.
• Execution is more efficient thanks to Playwright’s built-in UI element wait mechanisms, leading to faster test runs compared to Selenium — a key advantage, especially when running tests within a CI/CD pipeline.
• Additionally, adopting a BDD workflow using Reqnroll, the successor to SpecFlow, is recommended.

With these key advantages in mind, it’s clear why Playwright stands out as the most suitable choice for this specific client case.

All of these well-known frameworks have their strength and weakness, excelling in some areas more than others. Selenium is an unquestionable choice for cross-browser test automation and multi-language support. Cypress is ideal for frontend tests of JavaScript applications because of its modern and developer-friendly approach. Playwright offers rich and heavy features for testing modern web applications across various browsers with minimal configuration.

Ultimately, the best framework choice depends on a careful evaluation of the project’s requirements and the team’s expertise. By considering these factors, you can determine which framework aligns most closely with your testing goals and needs.