Playwright vs Puppeteer: When to Use Each
Playwright and Puppeteer are both excellent browser automation tools, and they share a lot of DNA—the Playwright team includes former Puppeteer developers who left Google for Microsoft in 2020. But they've diverged significantly since then.
This guide will help you understand the practical differences and choose the right tool for your specific use case.
The 30-Second Summary
| Aspect | Playwright | Puppeteer |
|---|---|---|
| Browsers | Chromium, Firefox, WebKit | Chromium only |
| Languages | JS, TS, Python, Java, C# | JavaScript/TypeScript |
| Auto-waiting | Built-in, automatic | Manual waitForSelector |
| Test runner | Built-in (@playwright/test) | Bring your own (Jest, Mocha) |
| Debugging | Trace Viewer, Inspector | Chrome DevTools |
| Parallel tests | Built-in, optimized | Via test runner config |
| GitHub stars | ~64,000 | ~87,000 |
| First release | 2020 | 2017 |
Origins: Same Team, Different Goals
Puppeteer was released by Google in 2017 as a Node.js library to control headless Chrome via the DevTools Protocol. It was designed for a single browser and has stayed focused on that.
Playwright was created by Microsoft in 2020 when several Puppeteer core developers joined Microsoft. They built Playwright to address Puppeteer's limitations: single-browser support, manual waiting, and lack of a built-in test runner.
This shared heritage means the APIs are similar—migration is straightforward—but Playwright has added features that Puppeteer doesn't have.
Key Difference #1: Browser Support
This is often the deciding factor.
Playwright
Tests run on Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit (Safari's engine) out of the box. One test file, three browsers:
Puppeteer
Designed for Chromium. Firefox has experimental support, but many APIs are unimplemented. No WebKit/Safari support at all.
Bottom line: If you need to test Safari or run cross-browser tests, Playwright is your only option.
Key Difference #2: Auto-Waiting
This is where Playwright really shines for test reliability.
Puppeteer: Manual Waiting
You must explicitly wait for elements before interacting with them:
Forgetting a waitForSelector leads to flaky tests that fail
intermittently—the bane of E2E testing.
Playwright: Automatic Waiting
Playwright automatically waits for elements to be actionable before interacting with them:
Before any action (click, fill, etc.), Playwright checks that the element is:
- Attached to the DOM
- Visible
- Stable (not animating)
- Enabled
- Not obscured by other elements
Bottom line: Playwright tests are more reliable out of the box. You spend less time debugging timing issues.
Key Difference #3: Locators vs Selectors
Playwright introduced Locators—a more powerful way to find elements.
Puppeteer: CSS/XPath Selectors
Playwright: Locators with Semantic Methods
Locators use accessibility roles and labels, making tests more resilient to DOM changes and more readable.
Key Difference #4: Built-in Test Runner
Puppeteer: Bring Your Own
Puppeteer is a library, not a test framework. You need to pair it with Jest, Mocha, or another test runner:
Playwright: Built-in Test Runner
Playwright Test (@playwright/test) is purpose-built for
browser testing:
Playwright Test includes:
- Fixtures: Automatic page/browser lifecycle management
- Parallelization: Tests run in parallel by default
- Retries: Built-in flaky test handling
- Reporters: HTML, JSON, JUnit out of the box
- Projects: Run same tests across multiple browsers/configs
Key Difference #5: Debugging Tools
Puppeteer: Chrome DevTools
Puppeteer uses Chrome's built-in DevTools for debugging:
Playwright: Trace Viewer + Inspector
Playwright has dedicated debugging tools:
The Trace Viewer is a game-changer for debugging CI failures:
- Screenshots at each step
- DOM snapshots you can inspect
- Network request/response logs
- Console messages
- Timeline of actions
When a test fails in CI, you download the trace and replay exactly what happened. No more "works on my machine."
Performance Comparison
Both tools are fast, but Playwright has a slight edge in benchmarks:
| Test Type | Playwright | Puppeteer |
|---|---|---|
| Navigation + actions | 4.51s avg | 4.78s avg |
| Memory usage | More predictable GC | Slightly higher peaks |
| Parallel execution | Optimized worker pool | Depends on test runner |
The difference is small for individual tests but can add up in large suites.
Code Comparison: Same Task
Here's the same test in both tools—fill a form and verify submission:
Puppeteer
Playwright
The Playwright version is shorter, more readable, and more reliable (no manual waits).
When to Choose Puppeteer
- Chrome-only tasks: PDF generation, screenshots of Chrome
- Web scraping: Simpler setup, good stealth plugins available
- Existing codebase: Already invested in Puppeteer
- Minimal dependencies: Just need browser automation, not testing
- Chrome DevTools Protocol: Need low-level CDP access
When to Choose Playwright
- Cross-browser testing: Need Safari/Firefox coverage
- E2E test suites: Built-in runner, fixtures, parallelization
- CI/CD pipelines: Better debugging with Trace Viewer
- Flaky test reduction: Auto-waiting eliminates timing issues
- Team projects: Locators are more maintainable than CSS selectors
- Non-JavaScript teams: Python, Java, C# bindings available
Migration: Puppeteer to Playwright
If you're considering migration, the APIs are similar enough that it's straightforward. Key changes:
There's even an automated migration tool:
Our Approach: Both
For this blog, we use both tools:
- Puppeteer: Core functionality tests (fast, Chrome-focused)
- Playwright: Safari/WebKit compatibility tests
This gives us fast feedback in development (Puppeteer) and cross-browser confidence before releases (Playwright).
Final Recommendation
For new projects: Start with Playwright.
The built-in test runner, auto-waiting, and cross-browser support make it the more complete solution. You'll write more reliable tests with less code.
For existing Puppeteer projects: Consider migration if you need cross-browser support or are fighting flaky tests. The migration is manageable, and the Trace Viewer alone is worth it for debugging CI failures.
For simple Chrome automation: Puppeteer is still excellent. Zero-config setup, smaller footprint, great for scripts and scraping.
Resources
- Playwright Documentation
- Puppeteer Documentation
- Official Migration Guide
- Automated Migration Tool
- Trace Viewer Guide