Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!


+ 1
Rainforest QA

+ 1
Add tool

Playwright vs Rainforest QA: What are the differences?


In this comparison, we will discuss the key differences between Playwright and Rainforest QA, two popular automation testing tools.

  1. Programming Language Support: Playwright supports multiple programming languages such as JavaScript, Python, and .NET, allowing developers to write tests in their preferred language. On the other hand, Rainforest QA primarily uses a declarative language called Rainforest Script, which may limit flexibility for developers who prefer to write tests in other programming languages.

  2. Testing Scope: Playwright is primarily focused on browser automation, providing comprehensive functionality for testing web applications across different browsers and devices. In contrast, Rainforest QA offers a broader scope of testing, including not only browser testing but also functional testing for mobile apps, APIs, and more.

  3. Testing Execution: Playwright allows for both local and remote test execution, offering flexibility for running tests on local development machines as well as cloud-based infrastructure. In contrast, Rainforest QA primarily offers cloud-based execution, providing a scalable environment for running tests without the need for extensive local infrastructure.

  4. Test Management: Playwright provides a basic level of test management capabilities, including test organization, execution, and reporting. However, it does not offer advanced features like test case management, test plan creation, and result tracking. In contrast, Rainforest QA offers extensive test management features, allowing teams to create and manage test cases, execute tests, track results, and collaborate more efficiently.

  5. Integration and Extensibility: Playwright integrates well with common test frameworks like Jest and Mocha, making it easier to incorporate tests into existing development workflows. It also provides APIs for customization and extensibility. Rainforest QA, on the other hand, offers integration with popular tools like JIRA and Slack, allowing for seamless collaboration and reporting. However, it may have more limited customization options compared to Playwright.

  6. Pricing Model: Playwright follows an open-source model, offering its core functionality for free. However, additional features and support may require purchasing a premium license. Rainforest QA follows a subscription-based pricing model, where users pay a monthly fee based on the number of test runs or test cases.

In Summary, Playwright and Rainforest QA differ in terms of programming language support, testing scope, execution options, test management capabilities, integration and extensibility options, and pricing models.

Get Advice from developers at your company using StackShare Enterprise. Sign up for StackShare Enterprise.
Learn More
Pros of Playwright
Pros of Rainforest QA
  • 14
    Cross browser
  • 10
    Open source
  • 9
    Test Runner with Playwright/test
  • 7
    Promise based
  • 7
    Well documented
  • 5
    Integrate your POMs as extensible fixtures
  • 5
    Execute tests in parallel
  • 5
    API Testing
  • 4
    Python Support
  • 4
    Capture videos, screenshots and other artifacts on fail
  • 3
    Inbuild reporters html,line,dot,json
  • 3
    Context isolation
  • 1
  • 13
    Cross-browser testing
  • 7
    Powerful API
  • 7
  • 7
    Super-simple test creation
  • 6
    Easy way to get real front-end smoke tests
  • 5
  • 5
    CI Integration
  • 3
    Manual regression testing results in 30 mins

Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions

Cons of Playwright
Cons of Rainforest QA
  • 12
    Less help
  • 3
    Node based
  • 2
    Does not execute outside of browser
    Be the first to leave a con

    Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions

    - No public GitHub repository available -

    What is Playwright?

    It is a Node library to automate the Chromium, WebKit and Firefox browsers with a single API. It enables cross-browser web automation that is ever-green, capable, reliable and fast.

    What is Rainforest QA?

    Rainforest gives you the reliability of a QA team and the speed of automation, without the hassle of managing a team or the pain of writing automated tests.

    Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

    What companies use Playwright?
    What companies use Rainforest QA?
    See which teams inside your own company are using Playwright or Rainforest QA.
    Sign up for StackShare EnterpriseLearn More

    Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions

    What tools integrate with Playwright?
    What tools integrate with Rainforest QA?

    Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions

    Blog Posts

    What are some alternatives to Playwright and Rainforest QA?
    Puppeteer is a Node library which provides a high-level API to control headless Chrome over the DevTools Protocol. It can also be configured to use full (non-headless) Chrome.
    Selenium automates browsers. That's it! What you do with that power is entirely up to you. Primarily, it is for automating web applications for testing purposes, but is certainly not limited to just that. Boring web-based administration tasks can (and should!) also be automated as well.
    Protractor is an end-to-end test framework for Angular and AngularJS applications. Protractor runs tests against your application running in a real browser, interacting with it as a user would.
    Cypress is a front end automated testing application created for the modern web. Cypress is built on a new architecture and runs in the same run-loop as the application being tested. As a result Cypress provides better, faster, and more reliable testing for anything that runs in a browser. Cypress works on any front-end framework or website.
    It is a pure node.js end-to-end solution for testing web apps. It takes care of all the stages: starting browsers, running tests, gathering test results and generating reports.
    See all alternatives