6 ms·

What do people thing of playwright vs cypress? I've been considering using playwright instead as it supports more browsers and I feel like it's easier to do pro

What do people thing of playwright vs cypress? I've been considering using playwright instead as it supports more browsers and I feel like it's easier to do production monitoring (by putting it in a aws lambda or using checkly) - Cypress: https://www.cypress.io https://www.cypress.io - Playwright aws lambda: https://github.com/PauloGoncalvesBH/running-playwright-on-aws-lambda https://github.com/PauloGoncalvesBH/running-playwright-on-aw... - Checkly: https://www.checklyhq.com https://www.checklyhq.com

dvngnt_ 5y ago
I love Cypress. there are definitely limitations though like iframe support or visiting two separate domains, tab support https://docs.cypress.io/guides/references/trade-offs#Permanent-trade-offs-1 https://docs.cypress.io/guides/references/trade-offs#Permane...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
machiaweliczny 5y ago
Playwright is definitely better IMO. Cypress is overengineered.
- felipellrocha 5y ago
  I wouldn’t say cypress is over engineered. Just a byproduct of its time.
  - sumedh 5y ago
    What do you mean?
CSDude 5y ago
- Cypress does not run on M1 natively. - Playwright is more lightweight. Can be good or bad on what you expect. But I definitely prefer Playwright.
tnolet 5y ago
We see a strong adoption of Playwright. It’s the default we recommend to users now. We also support Puppeteer, but its development is lagging. Having said that, I would love to support Cypress if I had infinite time and focus. Side note: Selenium is not on the menu, even with its large install base. We are aiming for where the puck is going and it’s going to Playwright. Full disclaimer: I’m CTO at Checkly.
- djbusby 5y ago
  The checkly folk recently published this https://blog.checklyhq.com/cypress-vs-selenium-vs-playwright-vs-puppeteer-speed-comparison/ https://blog.checklyhq.com/cypress-vs-selenium-vs-playwright... Cypress vs Selenium vs Playwright vs Puppeteer speed comparison
- hugs 5y ago
  Why was Selenium off the menu?
  - cebert 5y ago
    Selenium is slow and based on webdriver. I think most consider it legacy at this point. Most new projects tend to use Playwright, Cypress, or Puppeteer for E2E tests. All three options are much more performant and reliable.
    - nirvdrum 5y ago
      I've been out of this space for a while, but isn't WebDriver the only cross-browser spec for browser automation? The last I knew, the browser vendors were removing other automation hooks for security reasons and heavily influenced the WebDriver spec.
      - nkozyra 5y ago
        Well, playwright is cross browser too. I've only been using/playing with it for a few weeks, but I find it more contemporary and less clunky than selenium. And it's lighter and runs faster. I dislike passing around a driver to tests and the playwright built-in testing (which I think is wrapping the expect library) is pretty nice. I haven't fully made peace with the selector API in playwright, which uses a lot of experimental css selectors and a custom DSL, but these are minor learning curve issues.
twohaibei 5y ago
I highly recommend codeceptjs. After 4 years of using test cafe for e2e testing, codecept has proven to be much more pleasant to use.
cebert 5y ago
On my team we evaluated Cypress and Playwright and landed on Playwright. Some features it has that Cypress didn’t was Safari support, support for cross domain tests, and support for tests that need to open multiple browser windows (for testing collaborative editing).
cornedor 5y ago
We recently picked playwright for a project because we could do more with the "mouse". With playwight you can click coordinates on the page. I did not find an easy way to do this using cypress. Aside from that, playwright seems to be so much faster.
dgb23 5y ago
There is also gauge/taiko https://taiko.dev/ https://taiko.dev/
nimbix 5y ago
Cypress was such a pain that I simply wasn't writing or running tests just to avoid it. It was incredibly slow, had major bugs that are till open after multiple years, and worst of all, in headless mode it was passing tests that should have been failing (and were failing in headed mode). The only reason I discovered it was because headless mode seemed to run unusually fast. I switched to Playwright 6 months ago - I'm much happier now and the switch also allowed me to delete 3/4 of the helper code that I needed before.
lewisl9029 5y ago
My main issue with Cypress was the fact that it required a shift in mental model, i.e. queuing commands rather than executing them, thenables that aren't actually promises, running as client side JS as opposed to in a controller script. There were a ton of sharp edges and required a lot of education to adopt. Meanwhile Playwright's API is just promises. Everybody knows how to compose promises. The Cypress approach does in theory completely eliminate latency-induced flakiness, but in my experience, Playwright/Puppeteer's usage of bi-directional real-time protocols to communicate with the browser makes latency low enough that latency-induced flakiness is no longer a practical concern, especially when paired with the ability to selectively run test logic in client-side JS in the page with 0 latency. Selenium did suffer from latency-induced flakes all the time due to its slow uni-directional request/response model. I personally believe the Cypress model is an over-correction for Selenium PTSD, and isn't making as good a set of tradeoffs compared to Playwright/Puppeteer.
- hugs 5y ago
  The irony is that the Cypress model is extremely similar to the Selenium Version 1 model. We abandoned that approach in Selenium V2 (WebDriver). Time is a flat circle.
  - nexuist 5y ago
    I am leading a transition at work from Selenium to Cypress precisely because of our frustration with the WebDriver model. I don't consider myself an expert enough to know which approach is right, but could you elaborate on why Selenium chose to divert in V2 to what it is today?
  - inglor 5y ago
    This. Similarly how cypress does clicking with JavaScript which leads to weird bugs rather than with the debugger - similarly to old versions of selenium
mirekrusin 5y ago
Cypress was terrible choice for us where flow in the system is managed by multiple users - as cypress can work only on single open window/tab, you had to effectively duplicate, triple etc. each test. Playwright also allows trivially control/crosscheck backend/whatever as you're in nodejs context, not browser context.

dvngnt_ 5y ago

I love Cypress. there are definitely limitations though like iframe support or visiting two separate domains, tab support https://docs.cypress.io/guides/references/trade-offs#Permanent-trade-offs-1 https://docs.cypress.io/guides/references/trade-offs#Permane...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

machiaweliczny 5y ago

Playwright is definitely better IMO. Cypress is overengineered.

felipellrocha 5y ago
I wouldn’t say cypress is over engineered. Just a byproduct of its time.
- sumedh 5y ago
  What do you mean?

CSDude 5y ago

- Cypress does not run on M1 natively. - Playwright is more lightweight. Can be good or bad on what you expect. But I definitely prefer Playwright.

tnolet 5y ago

We see a strong adoption of Playwright. It’s the default we recommend to users now. We also support Puppeteer, but its development is lagging. Having said that, I would love to support Cypress if I had infinite time and focus. Side note: Selenium is not on the menu, even with its large install base. We are aiming for where the puck is going and it’s going to Playwright. Full disclaimer: I’m CTO at Checkly.

djbusby 5y ago
The checkly folk recently published this https://blog.checklyhq.com/cypress-vs-selenium-vs-playwright-vs-puppeteer-speed-comparison/ https://blog.checklyhq.com/cypress-vs-selenium-vs-playwright... Cypress vs Selenium vs Playwright vs Puppeteer speed comparison
hugs 5y ago
Why was Selenium off the menu?
- cebert 5y ago
  Selenium is slow and based on webdriver. I think most consider it legacy at this point. Most new projects tend to use Playwright, Cypress, or Puppeteer for E2E tests. All three options are much more performant and reliable.
  - nirvdrum 5y ago
    I've been out of this space for a while, but isn't WebDriver the only cross-browser spec for browser automation? The last I knew, the browser vendors were removing other automation hooks for security reasons and heavily influenced the WebDriver spec.
    - nkozyra 5y ago
      Well, playwright is cross browser too. I've only been using/playing with it for a few weeks, but I find it more contemporary and less clunky than selenium. And it's lighter and runs faster. I dislike passing around a driver to tests and the playwright built-in testing (which I think is wrapping the expect library) is pretty nice. I haven't fully made peace with the selector API in playwright, which uses a lot of experimental css selectors and a custom DSL, but these are minor learning curve issues.

twohaibei 5y ago

I highly recommend codeceptjs. After 4 years of using test cafe for e2e testing, codecept has proven to be much more pleasant to use.

cebert 5y ago

On my team we evaluated Cypress and Playwright and landed on Playwright. Some features it has that Cypress didn’t was Safari support, support for cross domain tests, and support for tests that need to open multiple browser windows (for testing collaborative editing).

cornedor 5y ago

We recently picked playwright for a project because we could do more with the "mouse". With playwight you can click coordinates on the page. I did not find an easy way to do this using cypress. Aside from that, playwright seems to be so much faster.

dgb23 5y ago

There is also gauge/taiko https://taiko.dev/ https://taiko.dev/

nimbix 5y ago

Cypress was such a pain that I simply wasn't writing or running tests just to avoid it. It was incredibly slow, had major bugs that are till open after multiple years, and worst of all, in headless mode it was passing tests that should have been failing (and were failing in headed mode). The only reason I discovered it was because headless mode seemed to run unusually fast. I switched to Playwright 6 months ago - I'm much happier now and the switch also allowed me to delete 3/4 of the helper code that I needed before.

lewisl9029 5y ago

My main issue with Cypress was the fact that it required a shift in mental model, i.e. queuing commands rather than executing them, thenables that aren't actually promises, running as client side JS as opposed to in a controller script. There were a ton of sharp edges and required a lot of education to adopt. Meanwhile Playwright's API is just promises. Everybody knows how to compose promises. The Cypress approach does in theory completely eliminate latency-induced flakiness, but in my experience, Playwright/Puppeteer's usage of bi-directional real-time protocols to communicate with the browser makes latency low enough that latency-induced flakiness is no longer a practical concern, especially when paired with the ability to selectively run test logic in client-side JS in the page with 0 latency. Selenium did suffer from latency-induced flakes all the time due to its slow uni-directional request/response model. I personally believe the Cypress model is an over-correction for Selenium PTSD, and isn't making as good a set of tradeoffs compared to Playwright/Puppeteer.

hugs 5y ago
The irony is that the Cypress model is extremely similar to the Selenium Version 1 model. We abandoned that approach in Selenium V2 (WebDriver). Time is a flat circle.
- nexuist 5y ago
  I am leading a transition at work from Selenium to Cypress precisely because of our frustration with the WebDriver model. I don't consider myself an expert enough to know which approach is right, but could you elaborate on why Selenium chose to divert in V2 to what it is today?
- inglor 5y ago
  This. Similarly how cypress does clicking with JavaScript which leads to weird bugs rather than with the debugger - similarly to old versions of selenium

mirekrusin 5y ago

Cypress was terrible choice for us where flow in the system is managed by multiple users - as cypress can work only on single open window/tab, you had to effectively duplicate, triple etc. each test. Playwright also allows trivially control/crosscheck backend/whatever as you're in nodejs context, not browser context.