StackShareStackShare
Follow on
StackShare

Discover and share technology stacks from companies around the world.

Follow on

© 2025 StackShare. All rights reserved.

Product

  • Stacks
  • Tools
  • Feed

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  1. Stackups
  2. DevOps
  3. Testing Frameworks
  4. Testing Frameworks
  5. Playwright vs TestCafe

Playwright vs TestCafe

OverviewComparisonAlternatives

Overview

TestCafe
TestCafe
Stacks262
Followers273
Votes26
GitHub Stars9.9K
Forks678
Playwright
Playwright
Stacks618
Followers587
Votes81
GitHub Stars79.0K
Forks4.8K

Playwright vs TestCafe: What are the differences?

Playwright and TestCafe are both popular automation testing tools for web applications. However, they have some key differences that set them apart in terms of their features and capabilities.

  1. Cross-Browser Support: Playwright offers full cross-browser support, allowing developers to test their applications on different browsers like Chrome, Firefox, and Safari. TestCafe, on the other hand, provides limited cross-browser support only for Chrome and Firefox.

  2. Multi-Page and Single-Page Application Testing: Playwright supports both multi-page and single-page application testing, providing the flexibility to navigate between different pages and validate their functionalities. In contrast, TestCafe primarily focuses on single-page application testing, making it more suitable for such scenarios.

  3. Native Mobile App Testing: Unlike TestCafe, Playwright extends its cross-browser capabilities to native mobile app testing as well. Developers can use Playwright to write automation scripts for Android and iOS platforms, enabling comprehensive testing across multiple devices.

  4. Programming Language Support: While both tools support multiple programming languages, Playwright has wider language support. It allows developers to write tests in JavaScript, TypeScript, Python, and .NET languages like C# and F#. On the other hand, TestCafe primarily focuses on JavaScript, making it more suitable for JavaScript-centric development teams.

  5. Debugging and Logging: Playwright offers advanced debugging and logging capabilities, allowing developers to debug their test scripts and log detailed information during test execution. TestCafe also provides basic debugging and logging features but lacks the extensive capabilities offered by Playwright.

  6. Community and Ecosystem: Playwright has a larger and more active community compared to TestCafe. It is backed by Microsoft, which ensures continuous development and support. The Playwright community actively contributes to the tool's ecosystem by developing plugins, integrations, and sharing knowledge. TestCafe has a smaller community, which limits the availability of additional resources and plugins for integration.

In summary, Playwright offers extensive cross-browser and native mobile app support, multi-page application testing capabilities, wider programming language support, advanced debugging and logging features, and a larger community. TestCafe, on the other hand, focuses on single-page application testing, has limited cross-browser support, and primarily supports JavaScript.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs
CLI (Node.js)
or
Manual

Detailed Comparison

TestCafe
TestCafe
Playwright
Playwright

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.

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.

Create stable tests (and no manual timeouts); Write in latest JS or TypeScript; Detect JS errors in your code; Launch concurrent tests; Build readable tests with PageObject; Include tests in continuous integration system; Rapid test development
Node library; Headless supported; Enables cross-browser web automation; Improved automated UI testing
Statistics
GitHub Stars
9.9K
GitHub Stars
79.0K
GitHub Forks
678
GitHub Forks
4.8K
Stacks
262
Stacks
618
Followers
273
Followers
587
Votes
26
Votes
81
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 8
    Cross-browser testing
  • 4
    Built in waits
  • 4
    Easy setup/installation
  • 4
    Open source
  • 3
    UI End to End testing
Cons
  • 9
    No longer free
Pros
  • 15
    Cross browser
  • 11
    Open source
  • 9
    Test Runner with Playwright/test
  • 7
    Promise based
  • 7
    Well documented
Cons
  • 12
    Less help
  • 3
    Node based
  • 2
    Does not execute outside of browser
Integrations
TypeScript
TypeScript
JavaScript
JavaScript
Jenkins
Jenkins
Travis CI
Travis CI
TeamCity
TeamCity
No integrations available

What are some alternatives to TestCafe, Playwright?

BrowserStack

BrowserStack

BrowserStack is the leading test platform built for developers & QAs to expand test coverage, scale & optimize testing with cross-browser, real device cloud, accessibility, visual testing, test management, and test observability.

Selenium

Selenium

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.

Sauce Labs

Sauce Labs

Cloud-based automated testing platform enables developers and QEs to perform functional, JavaScript unit, and manual tests with Selenium or Appium on web and mobile apps. Videos and screenshots for easy debugging. Secure and CI-ready.

LambdaTest

LambdaTest

LambdaTest platform provides secure, scalable and insightful test orchestration for website, and mobile app testing. Customers at different points in their DevOps lifecycle can leverage Automation and/or Manual testing on LambdaTest.

Karma

Karma

Karma is not a testing framework, nor an assertion library. Karma just launches a HTTP server, and generates the test runner HTML file you probably already know from your favourite testing framework. So for testing purposes you can use pretty much anything you like.

Robot Framework

Robot Framework

It is a generic test automation framework for acceptance testing and acceptance test-driven development. It has easy-to-use tabular test data syntax and it utilizes the keyword-driven testing approach. Its testing capabilities can be extended by test libraries implemented either with Python or Java, and users can create new higher-level keywords from existing ones using the same syntax that is used for creating test cases.

Karate DSL

Karate DSL

Combines API test-automation, mocks and performance-testing into a single, unified framework. The BDD syntax popularized by Cucumber is language-neutral, and easy for even non-programmers. Besides powerful JSON & XML assertions, you can run tests in parallel for speed - which is critical for HTTP API testing.

Rainforest QA

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.

WebdriverIO

WebdriverIO

WebdriverIO lets you control a browser or a mobile application with just a few lines of code. Your test code will look simple, concise and easy to read.

Cucumber

Cucumber

Cucumber is a tool that supports Behaviour-Driven Development (BDD) - a software development process that aims to enhance software quality and reduce maintenance costs.

Related Comparisons

GitHub
Bitbucket

Bitbucket vs GitHub vs GitLab

GitHub
Bitbucket

AWS CodeCommit vs Bitbucket vs GitHub

Kubernetes
Rancher

Docker Swarm vs Kubernetes vs Rancher

gulp
Grunt

Grunt vs Webpack vs gulp

Graphite
Kibana

Grafana vs Graphite vs Kibana