Top 24 Open Source Alternatives to Playwright Test

Introduction and Context

For more than a decade, Selenium set the standard for browser-based test automation. Its WebDriver protocol and rich ecosystem enabled QA teams and developers to automate functional tests across major browsers. Building on that progress, modern tools emerged to solve common pain points: stability, speed, cross-browser parity, and developer experience.

Playwright, created by Microsoft, brought reliable auto-waits, multi-browser support (Chromium, Firefox, WebKit), and powerful debugging and tracing to the mainstream. On top of the automation library, Playwright Test was introduced as a first-class test runner designed specifically for the web. It offers an opinionated configuration, built-in parallelism, test isolation, rich reporters, and a trace viewer—making it a strong choice for end-to-end testing in JavaScript/TypeScript projects. Playwright Test is open source (Apache-2.0) and has become popular for its speed, developer-friendly APIs, and consistent cross-browser behavior.

Despite its strengths, teams often need more than a single web-focused runner. Projects commonly include mobile apps, backend APIs, performance and security requirements, visual verification, or mutation testing for deeper quality signals. These needs drive interest in complementary or alternative tools that better fit specific contexts, languages, or organizational standards.

This guide surveys 24 open source alternatives to Playwright Test. Some are direct UI test frameworks; others target adjacent needs like APIs, performance, security, screenshots, or test quality. The goal is to help you choose the right tool for your scope and stack.

Overview: The Top 24 Alternatives to Playwright Test

Here are the top 24 open source alternatives covered in this article:

• Appium

• Citrus

• EarlGrey

• Espresso

• Gauge

• Geb

• JMeter

• Karate

• Lighthouse CI

• OWASP ZAP

• PIT (Pitest)

• Paparazzi (Cash App)

• Playwright (core library)

• Puppeteer

• Rest Assured

• Robot Framework + SeleniumLibrary

• Selenide

• Selenium

• Shot (Kakao)

• Spock

• Stryker

• Taiko

• TestNG

• xUnit.net

Why Look for Playwright Test Alternatives?

• Broader platform needs: Playwright Test is focused on web browsers. If you need native iOS/Android, IoT, or desktop app automation, you may prefer tools designed for those platforms.

• Language ecosystem preferences: The primary runner is JavaScript/TypeScript. Teams working in Java, .NET, Python, or Groovy may want native tooling that fits their language conventions and build systems.

• Specialized testing: Performance, security (DAST), mutation testing, and screenshot-based visual checks require specialized tools and methodologies beyond what a browser test runner provides.

• Organizational standards: Existing frameworks (e.g., TestNG, xUnit.net, Robot Framework) may already be entrenched in your pipelines, with reporting, parallelism, and patterns tailored to your teams.

• Test design approaches: Some teams prefer BDD-like specs or keyword-driven patterns over code-centric tests, especially for cross-functional collaboration.

• Infrastructure and stability: For very large suites, you may want runners with fine-grained control over distribution, retries, and resource usage, or prefer libraries that integrate with your existing runners.

Detailed Breakdown of Alternatives

Appium

What it is: Appium is a cross-platform mobile automation framework for iOS, Android, and mobile web. It leverages the WebDriver protocol and has a large ecosystem and community.

Standout strengths:

• True cross-platform mobile support (Android, iOS, mobile web)

• Mature ecosystem with plugins, inspector tools, and cloud device support

• Works with major languages and test runners

• CI/CD-friendly and extensible

How it compares to Playwright Test: While Playwright Test excels at browser automation, Appium focuses on native and hybrid mobile apps. If your scope includes mobile UI (beyond mobile web in a browser), Appium is the more suitable choice. For pure web testing, Playwright Test is typically faster and simpler to set up.

Best for: Teams automating end-to-end flows that span native mobile and web.

Citrus

What it is: Citrus is a message-based integration test framework for HTTP, WebSocket, and JMS. It targets the integration layer rather than the UI.

Standout strengths:

• Strong integration and messaging test capabilities

• Supports complex scenarios across protocols

• Good for contract and system integration tests

• Open source and Java-based

How it compares to Playwright Test: Citrus serves a different layer—message-driven integration—while Playwright Test targets web UI flows. Use Citrus to validate services, messaging, and integration logic where a UI runner is not applicable.

Best for: Teams validating message-based integrations and service orchestration.

EarlGrey

What it is: EarlGrey is Google’s UI testing framework for iOS, with tight integration into the iOS ecosystem and tooling.

Standout strengths:

• Native iOS UI testing with synchronization features

• Integrates well with Xcode workflows and CI

• Good control over iOS-specific behaviors

• Maintained by a large ecosystem

How it compares to Playwright Test: EarlGrey is specialized for iOS native apps. Playwright Test does not automate native iOS UIs. If your app is iOS-first, EarlGrey aligns with platform conventions and offers stable synchronization similar in spirit to Playwright’s auto-waiting for web.

Best for: iOS app teams needing native UI automation.

Espresso

What it is: Espresso is Google’s official UI testing framework for Android. It provides a reliable, synchronized approach to Android UI tests.

Standout strengths:

• First-party Android UI testing with robust synchronization

• Integrates with Android Studio and Gradle

• Fast and reliable for instrumentation tests

• Strong community and documentation

How it compares to Playwright Test: Espresso focuses on Android native UI, which Playwright Test does not cover. For Android apps, Espresso offers a streamlined, reliable experience, while Playwright Test remains better for cross-browser web testing.

Best for: Android teams automating native UI tests.

Gauge

What it is: Gauge (by ThoughtWorks) is a test automation framework that emphasizes readable specifications and supports multiple languages.

Standout strengths:

• Human-readable spec files to improve collaboration

• Multi-language support (Java, C#, JavaScript, and more)

• Plugins and reporting with CI integration

• Encourages maintainable, modular test design

How it compares to Playwright Test: Playwright Test is code-centric in JS/TS. Gauge supports BDD-like specs and can integrate with various automation libraries (including browser tools). Choose Gauge if you want readable specs across languages, or a hybrid BDD-like approach.

Best for: Teams favoring specification-driven tests across ecosystems.

Geb

What it is: Geb is a Groovy-based web automation framework that combines WebDriver with a Groovy/Spock-friendly DSL.

Standout strengths:

• Expressive Groovy DSL for web UI automation

• Seamless integration with Spock testing

• Page object support and concise syntax

• Good fit for JVM/Groovy shops

How it compares to Playwright Test: Playwright Test offers faster cross-browser automation with built-in tracing. Geb appeals to teams on the JVM who prefer Groovy/Spock and a concise DSL over JS/TS-based runners.

Best for: JVM teams using Groovy and Spock for web automation.

JMeter

What it is: JMeter is a performance and load testing tool for web, APIs, and various protocols, with both GUI and CLI modes.

Standout strengths:

• Scalable load testing with distributed execution

• Broad protocol support beyond HTTP

• Integrates with monitoring and APM tools

• Mature ecosystem and plugins

How it compares to Playwright Test: JMeter targets performance and load testing, which Playwright Test does not. Use JMeter to stress services, measure throughput and latency, and validate SLAs. Playwright Test remains a functional web UI runner.

Best for: Performance engineers and DevOps teams running load and stress tests.

Karate

What it is: Karate is a DSL for API testing that also supports UI automation through Playwright/WebDriver, blending API and UI capabilities.

Standout strengths:

• Unified DSL for API, HTTP, and UI testing

• Built-in data-driven testing and JSON/XML handling

• Easy assertions and mocks for API scenarios

• Integrates with CI and supports parallel execution

How it compares to Playwright Test: Karate provides a high-level DSL and unifies API and UI testing, whereas Playwright Test is a focused JS/TS runner for web UI. Choose Karate if you want combined API+UI scenarios with a concise DSL and minimal glue code.

Best for: Teams automating API-first workflows with selective UI coverage.

Lighthouse CI

What it is: Lighthouse CI automates audits for performance, accessibility, SEO, and best practices, tracking scores over time.

Standout strengths:

• Automated accessibility and performance audits

• CI integration with thresholds and regressions

• Actionable metrics and budgets for web quality

• Lightweight and scriptable

How it compares to Playwright Test: Lighthouse CI complements functional testing with audits; it does not replace UI automation. Use it alongside or instead of UI tests to enforce performance and accessibility budgets in CI.

Best for: Teams embedding accessibility and performance audits into pipelines.

OWASP ZAP

What it is: OWASP ZAP is a dynamic application security testing (DAST) tool for web and APIs, suitable for automated scanning in CI.

Standout strengths:

• Automated active and passive scans for vulnerabilities

• CI-friendly with scripting and APIs

• Backed by the OWASP community

• Useful for both exploratory and automated security checks

How it compares to Playwright Test: ZAP focuses on security scanning, not UI workflows. Use ZAP to detect vulnerabilities and misconfigurations; pair it with Playwright Test or another UI tool for functional coverage.

Best for: Teams adding security scanning to their QA and DevSecOps processes.

PIT (Pitest)

What it is: PIT is a mutation testing tool for JVM projects that mutates bytecode to assess the effectiveness of your test suite.

Standout strengths:

• Reveals weak tests by inserting code mutations

• Integrates with popular JVM build tools

• Detailed mutation coverage reports

• Encourages test suite robustness

How it compares to Playwright Test: PIT measures test quality at the unit/integration level for JVM code, while Playwright Test automates UI. Use PIT to harden backend and business logic tests and improve confidence before UI testing.

Best for: JVM teams focused on improving test quality and rigor.

Paparazzi (Cash App)

What it is: Paparazzi is an Android screenshot testing library that runs UI snapshot tests without an emulator.

Standout strengths:

• Fast screenshot tests without booting emulators

• Stable, reproducible visual baselines

• Integrates with Android build tools

• Good for design and regression verification

How it compares to Playwright Test: Paparazzi targets visual verification for Android specifically. Playwright Test does not provide native Android UI screenshot testing without an emulator. Use Paparazzi for lightweight visual regression on Android components and screens.

Best for: Android teams needing fast, reliable screenshot tests.

Playwright (core library)

What it is: Playwright is the cross-browser automation library that powers Playwright Test, with bindings for .NET, Java, Node.js, and Python.

Standout strengths:

• Auto-waiting, robust selectors, multi-browser support

• Rich tracing and debugging (trace viewer, videos, screenshots)

• Works across multiple programming languages

• Headless and headed modes with powerful isolation

How it compares to Playwright Test: Playwright is the automation engine; Playwright Test is the opinionated JS/TS runner. If you want a different language or custom runner (e.g., TestNG, JUnit, PyTest), using Playwright directly gives you flexibility while retaining modern automation features.

Best for: Teams wanting Playwright’s engine with non-JS runners or custom frameworks.

Puppeteer

What it is: Puppeteer provides high-level control of Chromium-based browsers via the DevTools protocol, primarily for Node.js.

Standout strengths:

• Direct Chromium control with a simple API

• Great for web scraping, PDF generation, and automation

• Lightweight and fast for Chrome/Chromium

• Strong Node.js ecosystem integration

How it compares to Playwright Test: Puppeteer is Chromium-focused and lacks first-class Firefox and WebKit support. Playwright Test offers cross-browser parity and a built-in runner with traces/reporters. Choose Puppeteer if you are Chromium-only and want a minimal API surface.

Best for: Node.js teams automating Chromium-only tasks or scripts.

Rest Assured

What it is: Rest Assured is a fluent Java DSL for testing REST APIs, widely used for backend validation.

Standout strengths:

• Concise DSL for HTTP requests and assertions

• Strong JSON/XML parsing and validation

• Integrates well with JVM build and test tools

• Mature and widely adopted in Java projects

How it compares to Playwright Test: Rest Assured is focused on backend APIs, not UI automation. For microservices and API-first development, it provides thorough coverage and faster feedback compared to UI tests.

Best for: Java teams validating REST APIs and contracts.

Robot Framework + SeleniumLibrary

What it is: Robot Framework is a keyword-driven automation framework with a large ecosystem. SeleniumLibrary adds browser UI capabilities.

Standout strengths:

• Keyword-driven syntax for readable test steps

• Large plugin ecosystem for web, APIs, and more

• Suitable for cross-functional teams and non-developers

• Works well in CI with reporting

How it compares to Playwright Test: Robot Framework emphasizes keyword-driven testing and accessibility for non-developers, while Playwright Test is code-centric. If your team prefers keywords and modular step reuse, Robot Framework is a strong option, and you can also integrate with non-browser libraries.

Best for: Teams favoring keyword-driven testing and broad library support.

Selenide

What it is: Selenide is a concise Java wrapper around Selenium WebDriver, focusing on stability and readable code.

Standout strengths:

• Fluent Java API with smart waits and concise selectors

• Built-in retries to reduce flakiness

• Good integration with JUnit/TestNG

• Transparent handling of browser lifecycle

How it compares to Playwright Test: Selenide offers a modern Java approach to WebDriver testing with convenience features similar to Playwright’s auto-waits. Playwright Test typically runs faster and offers built-in tracing/reporting, but if you are on JVM and prefer Java, Selenide is compelling.

Best for: Java teams who want stable, concise WebDriver-based UI tests.

Selenium

What it is: Selenium is the de facto standard for browser automation via WebDriver, with bindings for Java, Python, JavaScript, C#, and Ruby.

Standout strengths:

• Broad language and browser support

• Mature ecosystem with grid/distribution options

• Works with many runners and CI systems

• Backed by a large community and tooling landscape

How it compares to Playwright Test: Selenium provides a protocol and bindings; it requires choosing a runner and building structure around it. Playwright Test offers a batteries-included runner and automation stack. Selenium remains the most flexible choice if you need maximum language and framework choice or already have a WebDriver-based architecture.

Best for: Teams needing protocol-level flexibility and multi-language support.

Shot (Kakao)

What it is: Shot is a screenshot testing toolkit for Android that helps validate UI changes through visual diffs.

Standout strengths:

• Visual regression for Android UI

• Integrates into Android build pipelines

• Helps catch subtle design regressions

• Supports baseline management

How it compares to Playwright Test: Shot focuses on visual diffs for Android-native interfaces. Playwright Test is for web UIs, not native Android. Use Shot when design fidelity on Android is a priority and you want automated visual checks.

Best for: Android teams implementing visual regression testing.

Spock

What it is: Spock is a BDD-like testing framework for the JVM with expressive, readable specifications.

Standout strengths:

• Highly readable, behavior-oriented syntax

• Great integration with Groovy and Java projects

• Powerful data-driven testing

• Clear reporting and specification style

How it compares to Playwright Test: Spock is a general testing framework (unit/integration/BDD) rather than a web UI runner. Combine Spock with tools like Geb or Playwright (via Java) to automate UI, or use it standalone for backend and service testing with expressive specs.

Best for: JVM teams practicing behavior-driven development and readable specs.

Stryker

What it is: Stryker is a mutation testing platform for JavaScript/TypeScript, .NET, and Scala, measuring test suite quality.

Standout strengths:

• Cross-ecosystem mutation testing support

• Detailed insights into weak tests

• Integrates with common runners and CI

• Encourages robust unit and integration tests

How it compares to Playwright Test: Stryker is not a UI testing tool; it evaluates the effectiveness of your tests by injecting code mutations. Use it to raise confidence in your code-level tests before layering on UI automation.

Best for: Teams improving test suite rigor across multiple ecosystems.

Taiko

What it is: Taiko (by ThoughtWorks) is a Node.js browser automation tool with readable APIs, primarily for Chromium.

Standout strengths:

• Human-friendly APIs that reduce selector brittleness

• Good defaults and auto-wait behavior

• Integrates with popular JS runners

• Simple setup for web E2E tasks

How it compares to Playwright Test: Taiko is Chromium-focused and emphasizes readable APIs. Playwright Test offers broader browser support and built-in tracing/reporting. Choose Taiko if you value a minimal, readable Node.js API and are primarily Chromium-based.

Best for: Node.js teams wanting a clean, readable web automation library.

TestNG

What it is: TestNG is a flexible testing framework for the JVM with powerful annotations, data providers, and parallelism.

Standout strengths:

• Fine-grained control over test configuration and execution

• Parallelism and suite management

• Integrates with WebDriver and other libraries

• Rich ecosystem and reporting options

How it compares to Playwright Test: TestNG is a general-purpose runner; it is not tied to web automation. You can use TestNG with Selenium, Playwright (Java), or API libraries. If your JVM team needs advanced orchestration and already uses TestNG, it can replace the Playwright Test runner while retaining your preferred automation engine.

Best for: JVM teams needing a powerful, extensible test runner.

xUnit.net

What it is: xUnit.net is a modern unit and integration testing framework for .NET ecosystems.

Standout strengths:

• Clean attribute-based test model

• Parallel test execution and fixtures

• Seamless integration with .NET tooling

• Broad community support

How it compares to Playwright Test: xUnit.net is a runner/framework for .NET tests. Use it with Playwright for .NET or Selenium to build web UI tests in C#. If your organization standardizes on .NET, xUnit.net can serve as your primary runner, replacing Playwright Test’s JS/TS-focused runner.

Best for: .NET teams standardizing on C# with custom automation libraries.

Things to Consider Before Choosing a Playwright Test Alternative

• Scope and platforms: Do you need web only, or also native iOS/Android, desktop, APIs, or messaging? Choose tools that cover your scope without excessive glue code.

• Language and ecosystem: Align with your team’s primary language (JS/TS, Java, .NET, Python, Groovy) and existing build tools to reduce friction.

• Ease of setup: Consider installation complexity, drivers/emulators, and local developer workflows. Favor tools with predictable, reproducible setups.

• Execution speed and stability: Auto-waits, smart retries, and isolation strategies reduce flakiness. Evaluate performance at the scale of your expected suite.

• CI/CD integration: Look for headless execution, parallelization, container readiness, and artifacts (logs, screenshots, videos, traces) that fit your pipelines.

• Debugging and observability: Traces, screenshots, videos, network logs, and rich reporters are crucial for rapid triage.

• Test design approach: Decide between code-centric, keyword-driven, or BDD/spec-style frameworks based on who writes and maintains tests.

• Community and longevity: Prefer projects with active development, documentation, and community support.

• Scalability: Assess how the tool handles thousands of tests, sharding, retries, and cloud execution (e.g., device farms or browser grids).

• Cost and licensing: All tools here are open source (Apache-2.0), but total cost includes maintenance, infrastructure, and developer time.

Conclusion

Playwright Test remains a powerful, developer-friendly runner for modern web automation. Its cross-browser parity, automatic waiting, rich tracing, and reporters make it a top choice for JS/TS teams building and maintaining robust E2E suites.

However, no single tool fits every need. If you are testing native mobile apps, Appium, Espresso, or EarlGrey will serve you better. For API-first projects, Rest Assured or Karate provide faster, more focused coverage. Performance and security needs call for JMeter and OWASP ZAP, while visual regression and screenshot testing on Android are well served by Paparazzi and Shot. If you need flexibility in language or runner, Selenium, Selenide, Geb, Robot Framework, TestNG, and xUnit.net provide familiar foundations that integrate with your existing stack. For test quality beyond coverage percentages, mutation testing with PIT or Stryker can surface gaps that UI tests alone will not catch. And if you want the Playwright engine without the JS/TS runner, using Playwright directly in .NET, Java, or Python is a strong, open alternative.

The best choice depends on your platforms, team skills, and pipeline maturity. Many organizations combine tools: for example, Playwright (or Selenium) for UI, Rest Assured for APIs, Lighthouse CI for performance and accessibility audits, and ZAP for security. If you need cross-browser/device coverage at scale, consider augmenting your stack with a hosted grid or device farm to reduce maintenance and increase reliability.

Start from your immediate goals—platform coverage, speed, and maintainability—and choose the smallest set of tools that collectively meet your requirements. With the open source options above, you have a strong foundation to build a testing strategy that fits your application today and scales with your needs tomorrow.