Playwright vs Selenium: Benchmarks, Code & Decision Guid

Selenium has dominated web test automation for nearly two decades. It pioneered browser automation, built a massive ecosystem, and remains the most widely adopted testing framework in the industry. But Playwright, released by Microsoft in 2020, has rapidly gained traction by addressing many pain points that Selenium users have lived with for years.

This guide provides a detailed comparison to help you decide whether to adopt Playwright for new projects, migrate existing Selenium suites, or stick with Selenium for specific use cases. We cover architecture differences, feature comparisons, real code examples, performance data, and a practical migration path.

Quick Comparison Table

Before diving deep, here is a side-by-side overview of the key differences:

Feature	Playwright	Selenium
Release Year	2020	2004
Maintained By	Microsoft	Selenium Community / Software Freedom Conservancy
Browser Support	Chromium, Firefox, WebKit	Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Safari, IE (legacy)
Language Support	JavaScript, TypeScript, Python, Java, C#	Java, Python, C#, Ruby, JavaScript, Kotlin
Architecture	Direct CDP/browser protocol	WebDriver protocol (W3C standard)
Auto-Wait	Built-in, automatic	Manual explicit/implicit waits
Parallel Execution	Native, built-in	Requires Selenium Grid
Mobile Emulation	Yes, built-in	Limited, requires Appium for native
Network Interception	Yes, native	Limited, requires proxy tools
Test Generator	Yes (codegen)	Third-party tools only
Trace Viewer	Yes, built-in	No (screenshot/video via plugins)
iFrame Handling	Simple, automatic	Complex, requires frame switching
Shadow DOM	Native support	Requires JavaScript workarounds
Setup Complexity	One command (npm init playwright)	Multiple dependencies, drivers
Community Size	Growing rapidly	Massive, mature
Enterprise Adoption	Increasing	Industry standard

Architecture: How They Work Differently

Understanding the architectural differences explains why Playwright and Selenium behave differently in practice.

Selenium Architecture

Selenium uses the WebDriver protocol, a W3C standard that communicates with browsers through separate driver executables:

Test Script → Selenium Client → WebDriver Protocol → Browser Driver → Browser

Each browser requires its own driver (ChromeDriver, GeckoDriver, etc.), and these drivers must be version-matched to the installed browser. The WebDriver protocol sends commands over HTTP, which introduces latency and requires polling to check element states.

Implications:

Driver version mismatches cause failures
HTTP-based communication adds overhead
Polling for element readiness leads to flaky tests
Each command is a separate HTTP request

Playwright Architecture

Playwright communicates directly with browsers using their native debugging protocols (Chrome DevTools Protocol for Chromium and similar protocols for Firefox and WebKit):

Test Script → Playwright Library → Browser Protocol (CDP/Native) → Browser

Playwright downloads and manages browser binaries automatically. Communication happens over WebSocket connections, enabling bidirectional, event-driven interactions.

Implications:

No driver management headaches
Event-driven waits instead of polling
A single connection handles all commands
Direct access to browser internals (network, console, etc.)

Key Feature Differences

Playwright and Selenium differ significantly in day-to-day features that affect test reliability, maintenance effort, and developer experience. Here are the six most important differences.

1. Auto-Waiting

Selenium's manual wait management remains its most common source of test flakiness. Every interaction requires explicit waits:

# Selenium - Python
from selenium.webdriver.support.ui import WebDriverWait
from selenium.webdriver.support import expected_conditions as EC

wait = WebDriverWait(driver, 10)
button = wait.until(EC.element_to_be_clickable((By.ID, "submit")))
button.click()

Playwright handles this automatically:

# Playwright - Python
await page.click('#submit')

That single line waits for the element to be visible, stable, enabled, and not obscured. Based on our customer data, teams see a 40-60% reduction in flaky tests after migrating, primarily due to auto-waiting.

2. Browser and Driver Management

Selenium requires installing browser drivers, matching versions, and configuring paths. Browser updates frequently break tests.

// Selenium setup
System.setProperty("webdriver.chrome.driver", "/path/to/chromedriver");
WebDriver driver = new ChromeDriver();

Playwright bundles and manages browsers automatically:

npm init playwright@latest # Downloads everything

// No driver setup needed
const browser = await chromium.launch();

3. Parallel Test Execution

Selenium requires setting up Grid infrastructure:

java -jar selenium-server.jar hub
java -jar selenium-server.jar node --hub http://localhost:4444

Playwright includes native parallelization:

// playwright.config.js
module.exports = {
workers: 4,
fullyParallel: true,
};

No additional servers, no infrastructure maintenance.

4. Network Interception

Selenium cannot intercept network requests natively. You need external tools like BrowserMob Proxy.

Playwright handles it directly:

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

// Block images to speed up tests
await page.route('**/*.png', route => route.abort());

5. Debugging Tools

Selenium offers basic screenshots and page source capture. Video recording requires third-party tools.

Playwright records complete execution traces including DOM snapshots, network requests, console logs, and action timelines:

// playwright.config.js
module.exports = {
use: {
trace: 'on-first-retry',
video: 'retain-on-failure',
},
};

View traces with npx playwright show-trace trace.zip a complete debugging experience showing exactly what happened at each step.

6. Modern Web Patterns

iFrames:

// Selenium - must switch context
driver.switchTo().frame("iframe-name");
driver.findElement(By.id("button")).click();
driver.switchTo().defaultContent();

// Playwright - handles frames naturally
await page.frameLocator('#iframe-name').locator('#button').click();

Shadow DOM:

// Selenium - requires JavaScript execution
WebElement shadowHost = driver.findElement(By.id("shadow-host"));
SearchContext shadowRoot = (SearchContext) ((JavascriptExecutor) driver)
.executeScript("return arguments[0].shadowRoot", shadowHost);

// Playwright - native support
await page.locator('#shadow-host >> .shadow-element').click();

Code Comparison: Same Test, Both Frameworks

The best way to understand the practical difference is to see the same test written in both frameworks. This login test demonstrates how Playwright's design choices result in dramatically less boilerplate code.

Selenium (Java):

public class LoginTest {
WebDriver driver;
WebDriverWait wait;

@BeforeMethod
public void setup() {
WebDriverManager.chromedriver().setup();
driver = new ChromeDriver();
wait = new WebDriverWait(driver, Duration.ofSeconds(10));
}

@Test
public void testLogin() {
driver.get("https://example.com/login");
wait.until(ExpectedConditions.visibilityOfElementLocated(By.id("username")));
driver.findElement(By.id("username")).sendKeys("testuser");
driver.findElement(By.id("password")).sendKeys("password123");
driver.findElement(By.id("submit")).click();
wait.until(ExpectedConditions.urlContains("/dashboard"));
}

@AfterMethod
public void teardown() {
if (driver != null) driver.quit();
}
}

Playwright (JavaScript):

const { test, expect } = require('@playwright/test');

test('successful login', async ({ page }) => {
await page.goto('https://example.com/login');
await page.fill('#username', 'testuser');
await page.fill('#password', 'password123');
await page.click('#submit');
await expect(page).toHaveURL(/.*dashboard/);
});

Result: 30+ lines vs 8 lines for identical functionality.

When to Choose Selenium

Despite Playwright's advantages, Selenium remains the right choice in specific scenarios:

1. Legacy Browser Requirements
If you must test Internet Explorer 11 or older browsers, Selenium is your only option.

2. Large Existing Test Suites
If you have 5,000+ stable Selenium tests, migration cost may outweigh benefits. Consider Playwright for new features only.

3. Mobile Native App Testing
Selenium integrates with Appium for native iOS/Android testing. Playwright only handles mobile web emulation.

4. Regulatory Requirements
Some organizations require W3C-standardized tooling. Selenium's WebDriver protocol satisfies compliance requirements that newer frameworks may not.

5. Non-JS Team Preference
While Playwright supports Java/Python/C#, its JavaScript implementation is most mature. Selenium's Java bindings have 20 years of refinement.

When to Choose Playwright

Playwright is the stronger choice for most modern web testing scenarios. Here are five situations where Playwright clearly wins.

1. New Projects
No legacy baggage, start with the faster, more reliable framework.

2. Flaky Test Problems
Auto-waiting eliminates most flakiness. If your Selenium suite has >5% flaky rate, Playwright will help.

3. Modern Browser Focus
If you only need Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit (Safari engine), Playwright covers everything.

4. CI/CD Speed Requirements
Native parallelization without Grid infrastructure speeds up pipelines significantly.

5. Complex Web Apps
Shadow DOM, iFrames, multiple tabs, Playwright handles modern patterns more elegantly.

Locator Migration Cheat Sheet

When migrating tests, updating locators is the most tedious task. This cheat sheet maps common Selenium locator patterns to their Playwright equivalents.

Selenium	Playwright
By.id("submit")	page.locator('#submit')
By.className("btn")	page.locator('.btn')
By.xpath("//div")	page.locator('//div')
By.linkText("Click")	page.getByRole('link', { name: 'Click' })
By.name("email")	page.locator('[name="email"]')

Selenium's Preferred Locators

Selenium recommends these locator strategies for maintainable tests, ordered from most to least preferred:

// 1. ID (fastest, most reliable)
driver.findElement(By.id("submit-btn"));

// 2. Name attribute
driver.findElement(By.name("email"));

// 3. CSS Selector (flexible, performant)
driver.findElement(By.cssSelector(".btn.primary"));
driver.findElement(By.cssSelector("[data-testid='submit-btn']"));

// 4. Link Text (for anchor tags)
driver.findElement(By.linkText("Click here"));
driver.findElement(By.partialLinkText("Click"));

// 5. XPath (most flexible, but slower)
driver.findElement(By.xpath("//button[@type='submit']"));
driver.findElement(By.xpath("//div[contains(@class, 'modal')]"));

Selenium Best Practices:

Prefer id and name over XPath when possible
Use data-testid attributes for test-specific selectors
Avoid brittle locators like /html/body/div[1]/div[2]/button
Use CSS selectors over XPath for better performance

Playwright's Preferred Locators

Playwright encourages user-facing locators that are more resilient to implementation changes:

// 1. Role-based (most resilient, accessibility-friendly)
await page.getByRole('button', { name: 'Submit' }).click();
await page.getByRole('textbox', { name: 'Email' }).fill('[email protected]');
await page.getByRole('link', { name: 'Learn more' }).click();

// 2. Text-based (user-visible content)
await page.getByText('Welcome back').isVisible();
await page.getByLabel('Password').fill('secret');
await page.getByPlaceholder('Enter your email').fill('[email protected]');

// 3. Test ID (explicit, stable)
await page.getByTestId('submit-btn').click();

// 4. CSS/XPath (still supported, less preferred)
await page.locator('#submit').click();
await page.locator('//button[@type="submit"]').click();

Playwright Best Practices:

Prefer getByRole() matches how users and assistive tech see the page
Use getByTestId() for elements without clear roles
Avoid CSS/XPath unless necessary
Locators auto-wait, so no need for explicit waits

Conclusion

Playwright offers significant advantages for modern web testing: faster execution, better reliability, simpler setup, and powerful debugging. For new projects or teams struggling with Selenium flakiness, Playwright is the recommended choice.

However, Selenium remains valuable for legacy browser support, existing stable suites, and specific compliance requirements. The decision should be based on your context, not trends.

For teams with Selenium investments, a gradual migration minimizes risk. Start with flaky tests, prove value, then expand systematically.

FAQs

1. Is Playwright more reliable than Selenium?

Yes. Playwright’s built-in auto-waiting removes most timing-related flakiness, which is the biggest issue teams face with Selenium. It generally produces more stable tests with fewer retries or custom waits.

2. Can I use Playwright with Java?

Yes. Playwright has official Java bindings with full support for core features. JavaScript/TypeScript gets updates earlier, but Java is production-ready and widely used by enterprise teams.

3. How long does migration take?

For a suite of ~1,000 tests, expect 8–12 weeks with a team of 2–3 engineers. Most teams run Selenium and Playwright in parallel until coverage matches.

4. Should I migrate if Selenium tests work fine?

Not necessarily. If your Selenium flakiness is under 2% and CI times are acceptable, migration isn’t urgent. Use Playwright for new tests or areas where Selenium is flaky.

Share this post

Playwright vs Selenium: Which Test Automation Framework Should You Choose?