Playwright vs Puppeteer: Features, Performance & Use Cases

Playwright and Puppeteer share something unusual in the software, the same creators. Engineers at Google built Puppeteer to automate Chrome. Those same engineers later moved to Microsoft and built Playwright to automate all browsers. This shared lineage means the tools feel remarkably similar, yet they serve increasingly different purposes.

Puppeteer remains the go-to choice for Chrome-specific automation tasks: generating PDFs, capturing screenshots, scraping data, and lightweight browser scripting. It stays focused and lean.

Playwright expanded into a comprehensive testing platform with cross-browser support, built-in test runners, and features designed for quality assurance workflows.

This guide helps you understand when each tool fits best. We examine their shared history, architectural choices, feature gaps, and practical scenarios where one clearly outperforms the other.

Quick Comparison Table

Here is a side-by-side overview of capabilities:

Feature	Playwright	Puppeteer
Created By	Microsoft (ex-Puppeteer team)	Google Chrome Team
Initial Release	January 2020	January 2018
Primary Focus	Testing and automation	Browser automation
Browser Support	Chromium, Firefox, WebKit	Chrome, Firefox (official since v23)
Language Support	JavaScript, TypeScript, Python, Java, C#	JavaScript, TypeScript
Built-in Test Runner	Yes (@playwright/test)	No (use Jest, Mocha, etc.)
Auto-Wait Mechanism	Yes, comprehensive	Basic; often manual waits are needed
Device Emulation	Mobile + tablet presets	Mobile emulation
Network Interception	Full control via route()	Basic via setRequestInterception()
PDF Generation	Yes	Yes (more mature)
Screenshot Capture	Yes	Yes (mature)
Trace Recording	Yes, built-in	Not available
Parallel Execution	Native support	Manual setup required
Package Size	~150 MB (bundled browsers)	~170 MB (Chrome only)
API Similarity	~85% overlap with Puppeteer	Base API
Best For	Cross-browser testing	Chrome automation, scraping

The Origin Story: Why Two Similar Tools Exist

Understanding the history explains why these tools overlap yet diverge.

Puppeteer's Beginning

Google released Puppeteer in 2018 to give developers programmatic control over Chrome. Before Puppeteer, automating Chrome required Selenium's WebDriver, a protocol designed for testing, not general automation. Puppeteer connected directly to Chrome using the DevTools Protocol, offering faster and more reliable control.

The library found immediate adoption beyond testing. Developers used it to generate invoices as PDFs, capture website screenshots for thumbnails, scrape product prices, and automate repetitive browser tasks. Its simplicity made browser automation accessible to developers who had never written a test.

Playwright's Evolution

The core Puppeteer team departed Google for Microsoft in 2019. They recognized limitations in Puppeteer's Chrome only approach, websites needed testing across Safari and Firefox too. Rather than retrofit Puppeteer, they started fresh with Playwright.

Playwright launched in January 2020 with three browser engines from day one. More importantly, it included features specifically for testing: automatic waiting, test fixtures, assertions, and eventually a complete test runner. While Puppeteer remained a general-purpose automation library, Playwright evolved into a testing framework.

Architecture: Similar Foundation, Different Scope

Both tools communicate with browsers using native protocols rather than WebDriver. The architectural difference lies in scope and abstraction level.

Puppeteer's Focused Architecture

Puppeteer maintains a tight connection between your code and Chrome's internals:

Your Script

↓

Puppeteer Library

↓

Chrome DevTools Protocol (CDP)

↓

Chrome/Chromium Browser

This directness provides:

Minimal abstraction overhead
Access to Chrome-specific features
Smaller dependency footprint when you only need Chrome
Predictable behavior tied to Chrome's release cycle

Firefox support arrived in version 23 (August 2024) using WebDriver BiDi protocol, though Chrome remains the primary focus.

Playwright's Expanded Architecture

Playwright adds abstraction layers to support multiple browsers consistently:

Your Script

↓

Playwright Library

↓

Browser-Specific Protocol Adapters

├── CDP (Chromium)

├── Custom Protocol (Firefox)

└── Custom Protocol (WebKit)

↓

Browser Engines

This architecture enables:

Identical API across three browser engines
Browser-agnostic test code
Consistent behavior regardless of browser quirks
Additional testing features built on top

The trade-off is increased complexity and larger installation size.

Feature Comparison: Where They Diverge

Despite API similarities, significant feature gaps exist. These six areas show the practical differences.

1. Browser Coverage

Puppeteer concentrates on Chrome with Firefox as a secondary option. This focus means Chrome automation works flawlessly, new Chrome features get Puppeteer support quickly.

javascript
// Puppeteer - launch Chrome (default)
const browser = await puppeteer.launch();

// Puppeteer - launch Firefox
const browser = await puppeteer.launch({ browser: 'firefox' });

Playwright treats all three engines equally. Tests written once run across Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit without modification.

javascript
// Playwright - launch any browser
const chromium = await playwright.chromium.launch();
const firefox = await playwright.firefox.launch();
const webkit = await playwright.webkit.launch();

Choose Puppeteer for Chrome-specific automation. Choose Playwright when Safari compatibility matters or when testing must cover multiple browsers.

2. Waiting Strategies

Puppeteer provides waiting utilities, but developers must use them explicitly:

javascript
// Puppeteer - manual waits often needed
await page.goto('https://example.com');
await page.waitForSelector('#dynamic-content');
await page.click('#dynamic-content');

// Or wait for navigation
await Promise.all([
page.waitForNavigation(),
page.click('a.next-page'),
]);

Playwright builds waiting into every action automatically:

javascript
// Playwright - waiting happens automatically
await page.goto('https://example.com');
await page.click('#dynamic-content');
// Playwright waits for element to be visible, stable, and clickable

Playwright reduces boilerplate code and eliminates a common source of flaky scripts. For quick automation tasks, Puppeteer's explicit waits offer more control.

3. Test Framework Integration

Puppeteer is a library, not a framework. You bring your own test runner:

javascript
// Puppeteer with Jest
const puppeteer = require('puppeteer');

describe('Homepage', () => {
let browser, page;

beforeAll(async () => {
browser = await puppeteer.launch();
page = await browser.newPage();
});

afterAll(async () => {
await browser.close();
});

test('loads successfully', async () => {
await page.goto('https://example.com');
const title = await page.title();
expect(title).toBe('Example Domain');
});
});

Playwright includes a purpose-built test runner with fixtures, hooks, and assertions:

javascript
// Playwright with built-in runner
const { test, expect } = require('@playwright/test');

test('loads successfully', async ({ page }) => {
await page.goto('https://example.com');
await expect(page).toHaveTitle('Example Domain');
});

Playwright's integrated runner reduces setup time for testing projects. Puppeteer's flexibility suits projects that already have testing infrastructure or need automation without testing.

4. Debugging and Tracing

Puppeteer offers basic debugging through screenshots and console logging:

javascript
// Puppeteer debugging
await page.screenshot({ path: 'debug.png' });

page.on('console', msg => console.log('Browser log:', msg.text()));
page.on('pageerror', err => console.log('Browser error:', err.message));

Playwright captures comprehensive execution traces including DOM snapshots, network activity, and action timelines:

javascript
// Playwright tracing
const context = await browser.newContext();
await context.tracing.start({ screenshots: true, snapshots: true });

// ... run automation ...

await context.tracing.stop({ path: 'trace.zip' });
// View with: npx playwright show-trace trace.zip

Playwright's trace viewer dramatically simplifies debugging complex failures. For simple scripts, Puppeteer's lightweight approach suffices.

5. PDF and Screenshot Generation

Both tools excel at generating PDFs and screenshots, a common use case for browser automation.

Puppeteer's implementation is mature and well-documented:

javascript
// Puppeteer PDF generation
const browser = await puppeteer.launch();
const page = await browser.newPage();
await page.goto('https://example.com/invoice');
await page.pdf({
path: 'invoice.pdf',
format: 'A4',
printBackground: true,
margin: { top: '1cm', bottom: '1cm' }
});

// Screenshot capture
await page.screenshot({
path: 'fullpage.png',
fullPage: true
});

Playwright offers equivalent functionality:

javascript
// Playwright PDF generation
const browser = await chromium.launch();
const page = await browser.newPage();
await page.goto('https://example.com/invoice');
await page.pdf({
path: 'invoice.pdf',
format: 'A4',
printBackground: true,
margin: { top: '1cm', bottom: '1cm' }
});

// Screenshot capture
await page.screenshot({
path: 'fullpage.png',
fullPage: true
});

Nearly identical APIs mean this use case doesn't favor either tool. Puppeteer's longer track record means more Stack Overflow answers for edge cases.

6. Network Control

Puppeteer provides request interception for modifying or blocking requests:

javascript
// Puppeteer network interception
await page.setRequestInterception(true);

page.on('request', request => {
if (request.resourceType() === 'image') {
request.abort();
} else {
request.continue();
}
});

Playwright's routing API offers more expressive control:

javascript
// Playwright network routing
await page.route('**/*.{png,jpg,jpeg}', route => route.abort());

// Mock API responses
await page.route('**/api/users', route => {
route.fulfill({
status: 200,
contentType: 'application/json',
body: JSON.stringify([{ id: 1, name: 'Mock User' }])
});
});

Playwright's pattern matching and response mocking feel more intuitive. For simple blocking, both work equally well.

Code Comparison: Same Task, Both Libraries

This example demonstrates scraping product data, a task both tools handle well.

Puppeteer Implementation

javascript
const puppeteer = require('puppeteer');

async function scrapeProducts() {
const browser = await puppeteer.launch({ headless: true });
const page = await browser.newPage();

// Block images to speed up scraping
await page.setRequestInterception(true);
page.on('request', req => {
if (req.resourceType() === 'image') req.abort();
else req.continue();
});

await page.goto('https://example-store.com/products');
await page.waitForSelector('.product-card');

const products = await page.evaluate(() => {
const cards = document.querySelectorAll('.product-card');
return Array.from(cards).map(card => ({
name: card.querySelector('.product-name')?.textContent?.trim(),
price: card.querySelector('.product-price')?.textContent?.trim(),
url: card.querySelector('a')?.href
}));
});

await browser.close();
return products;
}

scrapeProducts().then(console.log);

Playwright Implementation

javascript
const { chromium } = require('playwright');

async function scrapeProducts() {
const browser = await chromium.launch({ headless: true });
const page = await browser.newPage();

// Block images to speed up scraping
await page.route('**/*.{png,jpg,jpeg,gif}', route => route.abort());

await page.goto('https://example-store.com/products');

const products = await page.locator('.product-card').evaluateAll(cards =>
cards.map(card => ({
name: card.querySelector('.product-name')?.textContent?.trim(),
price: card.querySelector('.product-price')?.textContent?.trim(),
url: card.querySelector('a')?.href
}))
);

await browser.close();
return products;
}

scrapeProducts().then(console.log);

The code is nearly identical. Migration between tools requires minimal effort for automation scripts. The main differences appear in testing-specific features.

Use Case Analysis: Matching Tools to Tasks

Different projects benefit from different tools. Here's guidance for common scenarios.

When Puppeteer Excels

PDF Invoice Generation Service

A microservice that converts HTML templates to PDF invoices needs reliability and speed, not cross-browser support. Puppeteer's mature PDF implementation and smaller footprint make it ideal.

Website Screenshot Service

Services generating social media preview images or website thumbnails benefit from Puppeteer's straightforward API and extensive documentation for screenshot edge cases.

Data Extraction Scripts

One-off scraping tasks targeting Chrome-rendered content work perfectly with Puppeteer. The smaller installation size helps in containerized deployments.

Chrome Extension Testing

Testing Chrome extensions requires Chrome specifically. Puppeteer's tight Chrome integration makes extension automation straightforward.

Performance Profiling

Puppeteer provides direct access to Chrome's performance APIs for lighthouse audits, coverage reports, and performance traces.

When Playwright Excels

Cross-Browser Test Suites

Applications requiring Safari, Firefox, and Chrome testing need Playwright. Writing tests once and running them across browsers saves significant maintenance effort.

End-to-End Testing Projects

The built-in test runner, assertions, fixtures, and reporting make Playwright the complete package for QA workflows.

Complex Web Application Testing

Applications with OAuth flows, payment integrations, or multi-tab workflows benefit from Playwright's superior handling of these scenarios.

Multi-Language Teams

Organizations using Python, Java, or C# for test automation can use Playwright natively rather than maintaining separate JavaScript tooling.

CI/CD Integration

Playwright's native parallelization, retry logic, and trace artifacts integrate smoothly with continuous integration pipelines.

Performance Considerations

Both tools perform well, but characteristics differ based on use case.

Startup Time

Puppeteer launches Chrome slightly faster due to simpler initialization. For scripts running frequently, this difference accumulates.

Memory Usage

Single-browser scenarios favor Puppeteer's smaller footprint. Playwright's additional browser binaries consume more disk space but only load what you use.

Execution Speed

Script execution speed is comparable. Playwright's auto-waiting may add milliseconds compared to Puppeteer's explicit waits, but it reduces debugging time.

Parallel Execution

Playwright's built-in parallelization handles scaling better. Puppeteer requires manual implementation using libraries like puppeteer-cluster.

Making the Decision: A Practical Framework

Answer these questions to determine which tool fits your needs:

1. Do you need Safari/WebKit testing?

Yes → Playwright
No → Either tool works

2. Is this primarily a testing project?

Yes → Playwright (built-in runner, assertions)
No → Puppeteer (lighter weight)

3. Are you building automation scripts (PDFs, screenshots, scraping)?

Yes → Puppeteer (mature, documented)
Either works, but Puppeteer has more examples

4. Does your team use Python, Java, or C#?

Yes → Playwright (native bindings)
No (JavaScript only) → Either tool works

5. Do you need comprehensive debugging traces?

Yes → Playwright (trace viewer)
No → Puppeteer suffices

6. Is installation size a concern (containers, lambdas)?

Yes → Puppeteer (smaller for Chrome-only)
No → Either tool works

Conclusion

Playwright and Puppeteer grew from the same foundation but serve different primary audiences today. Puppeteer remains excellent for Chrome-focused automation, generating documents, capturing screenshots, scraping data, and lightweight scripting. Its focused approach means less complexity for simple tasks.

Playwright evolved into a testing powerhouse with cross-browser support, integrated test running, and debugging tools designed for quality assurance workflows. Teams building comprehensive test suites benefit from its additional features.

For many projects, especially those mixing automation and testing needs, the decision isn't permanent. The similar APIs mean you can start with Puppeteer for quick automation wins and migrate to Playwright when testing requirements grow, or use both tools for different purposes within the same organization.

Choose based on your immediate needs, knowing that switching costs remain low thanks to the shared heritage these tools carry.

FAQs

1. Is Puppeteer or Playwright better?

Playwright is generally better for testing, while Puppeteer is great for automation and scraping.

Playwright supports all major browsers, has a built-in test runner, and provides strong auto-waiting, making it more reliable for end-to-end tests.
Puppeteer is simpler and lighter, but is mostly optimized for Chrome-only workflows.

2. Is there anything better than Puppeteer?

Yes, Playwright is widely considered the next step up from Puppeteer for modern testing and automation.

It adds cross-browser support (Chromium, Firefox, WebKit), stronger auto-waiting, better network control, and built-in testing tools.

For scraping, tools like Playwright or Selenium + undetected drivers may be better depending on anti-bot needs.

3. How fast is Cypress vs Selenium vs Playwright vs Puppeteer?

Speed varies by setup, but typical benchmarks show:

Playwright → Fastest overall for E2E testing (parallel execution + browser contexts)
Puppeteer → Fast for automation on Chromium (lightweight, minimal overhead)
Cypress → Slower than Playwright due to single-browser architecture and serial test execution
Selenium → Usually the slowest because of WebDriver communication and less efficient parallelization

3. Can I use both tools in the same project?

Yes, though it's unusual. Some teams use Puppeteer for automation utilities and Playwright for testing. The tools don't conflict.

4. Should I migrate my Puppeteer scripts to Playwright?

Only if you need features Puppeteer lacks (WebKit support, built-in test runner, trace debugging). Working Puppeteer scripts don't require migration.

Share this post

Playwright vs Puppeteer: Two Tools From the Same Team, Built for Different Goals