Key Differences and Use Cases

Automated browser testing has become an indispensable part of modern web development. With teams pushing complex applications and frequent updates to them, strong test automation software is needed to guarantee quality and speed.

For many years, Selenium has been the gold standard in this field, powering countless test suites in companies around the world.

More recently, however, Selenium has begun to lose ground to a newer automation tool, Playwright, a Microsoft framework popular owing to its modern design and developer-friendly API.

What Is Selenium?

Selenium is likely the most well-established tool in the field of automated browser testing (over 35,000 companies reported using Selenium in 2025).

Originally launched in 2004, it has grown to become the de facto industry standard for functional testing of web applications. While most of the current tools for automated testing represent one product, Selenium represents a set of tools:

• Selenium WebDriver: The underlying API upon which developers write test scripts and talk to browsers.
• Selenium IDE: A record-and-playback tool that may be utilized even by non-tech users to build simple test cases.
• Selenium Grid: A system for running tests in parallel on numerous machines, which is significant for extensive software testing.

In the background, Selenium is actually implemented on top of the WebDriver protocol. It translates test commands into JSON, sends them over HTTP to browser drivers, and then makes them execute within the browser. This architecture has worked well for generations, though it does come at some performance expense.

What distinguishes Selenium is its coverage. Selenium offers support for nearly all the prominent programming languages (Java, Python, C#, PHP, and JavaScript) and all the top browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, and even Internet Explorer).

With two decades of usage, it also has a huge community, extensive CI/CD pipeline integration, and an abundance of documentation and tutorials.

What Is Playwright?

Built by Microsoft and made available in 2020, Playwright was created with modern web development in mind to solve a lot of the issues testers have been facing when applying Selenium for browser automation.

Architecturally, Playwright takes a different approach. Instead of using the WebDriver protocol and HTTP requests, it communicates with browsers through a long-lived WebSocket connection.

Playwright runs on the three most used browser engines — Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit — so it targets Chrome, Edge, and Safari. Playwright also boasts solid mobile emulation and experimental support for testing actual Android devices.

In terms of programming languages, Playwright runs on JavaScript, TypeScript, Python, Java, and .NET, which are the most used development stacks today.

Playwright vs. Selenium: Key Feature Comparison

Playwright and Selenium both attempt to solve the same problem — enabling automated browser testing — but in fairly different ways. Let us examine their differences through the features most critical to development teams throughout the software development life cycle.

Ease of Setup and Use

Getting Selenium up and running often involves multiple steps. You’ll need to install the correct browser drivers, sometimes a standalone server, and configure everything so the test scripts can talk to the browser.

This flexibility is definitely powerful, but it comes at the cost of added complexity, especially for newcomers.

Playwright is easier in its nature. Once installed, it automatically downloads the browsers it needs. No extra server setup or driver setup is required, so you can write and execute tests right away.

For teams that prefer fast onboarding and minimal configuration, Playwright is the clear winner here.

Language Support

Selenium supports almost all of the top programming languages, including Java, Python, C#, Ruby, PHP, Perl, and JavaScript. That makes it a great fit in organizations where development teams use varying stacks.

Playwright has fewer languages supported, but it selects the most widely used ones: JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Java, and .NET. For most modern web applications, this list is more than acceptable.

Browser and Platform Support

Selenium’s support for browsers is unmatched. It can work with Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, and even Internet Explorer — making it essential for projects that are still required to be compatible with older environments. It also functions on Windows, macOS, Linux, and Solaris.

Playwright supports the three major browser engines — WebKit, Firefox, and Chromium — which translates to strong coverage of Safari, Edge, and Chrome.

IE support is missing, but it compensates through strong mobile emulation support and experimental Android real-device tests. For modern web development, this usually covers everything needed.

Speed and Performance

One of Playwright’s most significant selling points is speed. Because it uses a persistent WebSocket connection to communicate with browsers, there’s less back-and-forth compared to Selenium’s WebDriver protocol, which sends commands as JSON over HTTP.

This design difference leads to Playwright not only being faster but also more efficient under real-world loads.

Selenium’s approach has been a dependable option for years, but additional communication overhead bogs down tests, especially when scaled up.

Test Reliability (Flakiness)

Flaky tests are a nightmare for every QA team. With Selenium, developers manually handle synchronization using explicit waits or third-party libraries. If not properly managed, tests will fail intermittently.

Playwright reduces the issue with auto-waiting built in. The test framework automatically waits for elements to become available before handling them, which leads to fewer false failures and more stable test runs.

API Design and Developer Experience

Selenium’s API is powerful but can feel verbose. Writing tests usually requires more lines of code to handle waits and synchronizations.

Playwright boasts a cleaner, modern API. Clicking, hovering, or filling out forms needs fewer lines of code. For developers who like to write short and expressive code, Playwright is a better alternative.

Community and Ecosystem

Being on the market for nearly two decades, Selenium has one of the biggest test automation communities.

There is an enormous library of tutorials, libraries, and integrations with CI/CD tools. If you are stuck somewhere, it is likely that someone has already figured out how to solve it.

The Playwright community is smaller but growing very fast. Backed by Microsoft, it’s being actively contributed to, and modern frameworks are increasingly integrating with it.

Advanced Features

The most impressive part of Selenium is Selenium Grid, which enables distributed and parallel test execution on multiple machines. It’s incredibly helpful for large teams and enterprise testing.

Playwright comes with a suite of advanced capabilities out of the box: screenshots, video capture, network interception, device and geolocation simulation, and even timezone manipulation.

They come with no additional plugins, which is why Playwright is especially well-suited for contemporary, feature-rich web applications.

Test Runner & Framework Integration

Selenium does not have a test runner built in, but is compatible with JUnit, TestNG, NUnit, and Pytest frameworks. That flexibility allows teams to pair it with whatever runner best fits their workflow.

Playwright has a built-in test runner, which offers an integrated approach for those who like having everything bundled together. It is still compatible with Jest, Mocha, Jasmine, and Pytest, however.

Comparing Playwright and Selenium: At a Glance

Pros and Cons of Selenium

Selenium has been around for a long time, and that maturity is one of its biggest advantages. Its software has been used by thousands of companies for many years, so employees know they are working with a proven product.

The downsides mostly come from its age and architecture. Because Selenium communicates with browsers over HTTP, tests often run slower than with newer alternatives, such as Playwright, which use quicker connections.

Tests can also be less reliable — they’re known to randomly fail if synchronization isn’t addressed carefully, which means developers often have to add extra waits and timeouts.

Setting Selenium up takes more effort too, since you need to install browser drivers and sometimes configure Selenium Grid, which can be tricky for beginners.

Finally, the code itself tends to be more wordy than in modern frameworks. Writing and maintaining tests can take more lines and effort, making scripts harder to keep clean over time.

Pros and Cons of Playwright

Playwright is much newer than Selenium, but it quickly made a name for itself thanks to its speed and modern design. As we stated earlier, its architecture uses a WebSocket connection instead of HTTP, which makes tests run noticeably faster.

However, being newer has its trade-offs. Playwright’s community is smaller compared to Selenium’s, so there may be fewer tutorials and third-party integrations available.

It also supports fewer programming languages, which may not be enough for teams working in less common stacks.

Finally, Playwright doesn’t support legacy browsers like Internet Explorer, which makes it less suitable for projects that still need to test older environments.

When to Choose Each Test Automation Tool: Use Cases

So, which automation framework should you go with — Selenium or Playwright? As always, the answer depends on your team’s priorities and the kind of applications you’re testing.

Selenium is likely to be a better choice for organizations with well-established infrastructures and complex technology stacks. If your team works across multiple programming languages, or you have to support older browsers such as Internet Explorer, Selenium is still the best bet.

Its long history and massive community also make it easier to find resources, troubleshoot issues, and integrate with existing CI/CD pipelines. For teams that value stability and a proven track record, Selenium remains the safe bet.

Compared to Selenium, Playwright is ideal if you’re starting fresh with test automation or focusing on modern web applications. It has quick installation, runs faster, and produces more reliable outcomes.

Developers who prefer concise, clean code will appreciate its modern API, while teams working on complex applications can take advantage of advanced features, such as video recording, screenshots, and device emulation without extra plugins.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Is Playwright better than Selenium for end-to-end testing?

Not always. Playwright is faster and easier to set up, while Selenium supports more languages and older web browsers. The best choice depends on your project.

Can Playwright fully replace Selenium?

For modern web apps, it can. But if you need to test Internet Explorer or less common languages, Selenium is still the safer option.

Which one runs faster?

Playwright offers good execution speed. Its WebSocket connection makes tests quicker compared to Selenium’s older WebDriver approach.

Does Playwright work for mobile automation testing needs?

It doesn’t test native mobile apps, but it can emulate mobile browsers and even run tests on Android devices in some cases.

Can I use Selenium and Playwright together?

Yes. Some teams keep Selenium for legacy coverage and use Playwright for faster, modern web testing.

Which web automation testing tool has a stronger community?

Selenium has been around longer, so its community is bigger with lots of tutorials and tools. Playwright’s community is smaller but growing quickly, with strong support from Microsoft.

Do both work with CI/CD pipelines?

Yes. Both Selenium and Playwright can plug into systems like Jenkins, GitHub Actions, or GitLab CI without much trouble.