Top 28 Alternatives to Playwright Test for JS/TS Testing

Introduction: From Selenium to Playwright Test—and Why Teams Explore Alternatives

Web UI testing in JavaScript and TypeScript has come a long way. Early Selenium WebDriver adoption set the foundation for cross-browser automation, enabling QA teams to validate web apps through a programmable interface. Over time, more developer-friendly tools emerged—focusing on speed, reliability, and better debugging. Playwright, created to address modern browser and framework complexities, built on these ideas with powerful APIs, auto-waiting, and multi-browser support (Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit).

Playwright Test is the dedicated test runner for Playwright. It adds first-class test-running capabilities: parallel execution, retries, robust reporters, and deep integration with the Playwright trace viewer. Its strength lies in offering an end-to-end framework purpose-built for the web—with tracing, isolation, and strong CI/CD workflows. It’s open source (Apache-2.0) and popular with front-end teams that want a reliable, developer-friendly test stack in JS/TS.

However, while Playwright Test is well-established in its niche and excellent at web automation, engineering teams often need capabilities beyond what any one runner provides. Some projects require visual testing, mobile automation, low-code authoring, performance testing, or specific enterprise features. Others prefer to keep Playwright as the automation engine but swap the runner—or adopt a complementary tool for a specialized layer of testing.

This guide explores 28 alternatives and complements to Playwright Test for JS/TS teams. Whether you need component-focused testing, cross-platform mobile support, or visual regression coverage, you’ll find options that align with your use case.

Overview: Top 28 Alternatives to Playwright Test

Here are the top 28 alternatives for Playwright Test:

• Appium Flutter Driver

• Applitools Eyes

• Artillery

• BackstopJS

• Cypress Component Testing

• Dredd

• Gauge

• Katalon Platform (Studio)

• Lighthouse CI

• Loki

• Mabl

• New Relic Synthetics

• Pa11y

• Playwright (library)

• Playwright Component Testing

• Puppeteer

• Repeato

• RobotJS

• Sahi Pro

• Serenity BDD

• Squish

• Storybook Test Runner

• Stryker

• Taiko

• TestCafe Studio

• Testim

• Waldo

• reg-suit

Note: Some of these are not drop-in “runners” like Playwright Test. Several are specialized (visual testing, accessibility, performance), mobile-first, or complementary to a test runner. Many integrate with JS/TS-based workflows and CI/CD pipelines.

Why Look for Playwright Test Alternatives?

• Broader platform targets: Playwright Test focuses on web. Teams needing native mobile (iOS/Android), desktop, or embedded UI automation often require different tools.

• Specialized testing needs: Visual regression, accessibility auditing, performance/load, and mutation testing are outside the scope of a typical UI runner.

• Low-code or codeless authoring: Some organizations prefer recorders and non-code workflows for speed, collaboration, or enabling non-developers to contribute tests.

• Integration preferences: Teams may want a different runner (or BDD framework) while still using Playwright or another automation engine.

• Enterprise features and management: Centralized analytics, advanced reporting, asset management, and enterprise-grade governance may drive adoption of commercial platforms.

Detailed Breakdown of Alternatives

1) Appium Flutter Driver

Appium Flutter Driver extends Appium to test Flutter apps on iOS and Android. It offers Flutter-specific element access while leveraging Appium’s ecosystem.

Strengths:

• Flutter-specific locators for more reliable mobile UI automation

• Works across iOS and Android with a consistent API

• CI/CD friendly; integrates with modern pipelines

• Broad test automation capabilities for mobile UI

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Playwright Test targets web browsers; Appium Flutter Driver targets native Flutter mobile apps. If your scope includes mobile app automation, this is a better fit. If your scope is web-only, Playwright Test remains simpler.

Best for:

• Teams automating end-to-end flows for Flutter-based mobile applications.

2) Applitools Eyes

Applitools Eyes provides AI-powered visual testing for web, mobile, and desktop. It detects visual regressions using smart diffs and can scale execution via the Ultrafast Grid.

Strengths:

• AI-driven visual comparisons that catch pixel and layout issues

• Cross-platform coverage (web, mobile, desktop)

• Integrates with many test frameworks and SDKs

• Useful for preventing unnoticed UI regressions

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Playwright Test verifies functionality and DOM interactions; Applitools Eyes verifies visual appearance. Many teams use both together: run flows with a runner, then assert visuals with Eyes.

Best for:

• Front-end teams that need robust visual regression coverage at scale.

3) Artillery

Artillery is a performance and load testing tool for web, APIs, and protocols, with YAML/JS scenarios and a strong developer experience.

Strengths:

• Scalable load and stress testing for APIs and web services

• Integrates with monitoring and observability tools

• Scriptable in Node.js for flexible scenarios

• CI/CD friendly

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Playwright Test is not designed for load generation; Artillery is purpose-built for performance testing. Use Artillery to validate SLAs and system resilience, alongside Playwright Test for functional checks.

Best for:

• Performance engineers and DevOps teams running load, stress, and soak tests.

4) BackstopJS

BackstopJS is an open-source visual regression tool that compares screenshots taken in headless Chrome.

Strengths:

• Simple configuration for visual diff testing

• Works well with CI pipelines and PR workflows

• Useful for catching CSS regressions early

• Open source with an MIT license

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Playwright Test includes assertions and traces but doesn’t provide visual diffing out of the box. BackstopJS specializes in screenshot comparisons and is often used alongside a functional test runner.

Best for:

• Front-end teams needing quick, automated visual checks on web UIs.

5) Cypress Component Testing

Cypress Component Testing runs framework components (React, Vue, etc.) in a real browser, enabling fast feedback at the component level.

Strengths:

• Real-browser component tests for modern frameworks

• Developer-friendly tooling and debugging

• Tight feedback loop for UI components

• Integrates with CI/CD

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Playwright Test supports end-to-end browser automation; Cypress Component Testing targets component-level isolation. Use Cypress Component Testing if you prioritize unit-like UI validation and rapid iteration.

Best for:

• Teams practicing component-driven development with a need for browser-realistic component tests.

6) Dredd

Dredd is an open-source contract testing tool that validates APIs against an OpenAPI/Swagger specification.

Strengths:

• Enforces API behavior according to the spec

• Integrates into CI for continuous contract compliance

• Helps detect breaking API changes early

• Lightweight and focused

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Playwright Test is a UI/browser runner; Dredd validates API contracts. They serve different layers. Use Dredd to ensure API correctness while UI tests cover end-to-end flows.

Best for:

• Teams relying on contract-first API development and backward compatibility.

7) Gauge

Gauge, by ThoughtWorks, is an open-source end-to-end testing framework with readable, markdown-like specifications.

Strengths:

• Human-readable specs aid collaboration

• Language flexibility (JS/Java/C#)

• Plugins and CI integration

• Supports BDD-like workflows

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Gauge emphasizes specification readability and BDD-style authoring, whereas Playwright Test emphasizes developer-centric browser testing with rich debugging. Gauge is better if stakeholders co-author test specs.

Best for:

• Teams that want living documentation and BDD-like test authoring.

8) Katalon Platform (Studio)

Katalon is a commercial, all-in-one testing platform covering web, mobile, API, and desktop, with a recorder and analytics.

Strengths:

• Low-code authoring for faster test creation

• Unified platform across multiple target platforms

• Built-in analytics and reporting

• CI/CD and team collaboration features

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Playwright Test is code-first and web-focused. Katalon offers a centralized, low-code approach with broader platform coverage, suitable for mixed-skill teams and multi-surface testing.

Best for:

• Teams wanting a single platform with low-code workflows across web, mobile, API, and desktop.

9) Lighthouse CI

Lighthouse CI automates audits for performance, accessibility, and best practices on the web.

Strengths:

• Standardized audits with actionable scores

• CI-friendly setup for regression checks

• Helps maintain performance and a11y baselines

• Open source

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Playwright Test validates functionality; Lighthouse CI evaluates performance and a11y metrics. They complement each other—use Lighthouse CI to guard budgets and Playwright Test for behavior.

Best for:

• Teams embedding performance and accessibility checks into their pipelines.

10) Loki

Loki focuses on visual regression at the component level, especially within Storybook workflows.

Strengths:

• Component-oriented visual diffs

• Integrates with Storybook for UI libraries

• Lightweight and open source

• Good for design system integrity

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Playwright Test is end-to-end; Loki focuses on component visuals. Use Loki to keep components visually stable while Playwright Test covers end-to-end flows.

Best for:

• Teams investing in Storybook and design systems.

11) Mabl

Mabl is a commercial, low-code plus AI end-to-end testing platform for web and API.

Strengths:

• Self-healing and AI assistance reduce maintenance

• Cloud-native with strong analytics

• Low-code recorder for rapid authoring

• Integrates with CI/CD and team workflows

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Playwright Test is developer-centric and code-first. Mabl is better for teams that want low-code authoring, cloud execution, and managed insights without building a custom framework.

Best for:

• Organizations seeking a SaaS-first testing solution with minimal scripting.

12) New Relic Synthetics

New Relic Synthetics provides scripted browser and API checks running from the cloud.

Strengths:

• Cloud execution across regions

• Integrates with New Relic observability

• Scriptable in JavaScript

• Good for uptime and user journey monitoring

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Playwright Test is a local/CI runner for development and QA. Synthetics fits production monitoring and scheduled checks. They can be used together for pre- and post-deployment coverage.

Best for:

• Teams combining proactive monitoring with functional checks.

13) Pa11y

Pa11y is an open-source CLI tool for automated accessibility audits.

Strengths:

• Fast a11y checks directly in CI

• Helps track WCAG compliance

• Simple CLI workflow

• Open source and widely adopted

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Playwright Test doesn’t include automated a11y audits out of the box. Pa11y adds focused accessibility coverage. Use both: Playwright Test for flows, Pa11y for a11y rules.

Best for:

• Teams embedding accessibility compliance into pipelines.

14) Playwright (library)

Playwright is the automation library for web browser control across Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit—available for Node.js, Python, Java, and .NET.

Strengths:

• Reliable automation with auto-waiting and powerful selectors

• Cross-browser support with a single API

• Trace viewer and tooling ecosystem

• Multi-language support (not only JS/TS)

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Playwright Test is the runner; Playwright is the automation engine. An alternative is to use Playwright with another runner (e.g., Jest, Mocha, or a custom harness) if you prefer a different test structure or ecosystem.

Best for:

• Teams that want Playwright’s engine but a different test runner or framework style.

15) Playwright Component Testing

Playwright Component Testing brings Playwright’s engine to component-first testing for web frameworks.

Strengths:

• Component-level testing with real browser fidelity

• Reuses Playwright’s robust tooling (tracing, debugging)

• Fits modern component-driven development

• JS/TS friendly and CI-ready

Compared to Playwright Test:

• While Playwright Test focuses on end-to-end flows, Playwright Component Testing targets isolated components. Choosing it can shorten feedback cycles for UI units without losing realism.

Best for:

• Teams preferring component-first testing integrated with the Playwright ecosystem.

16) Puppeteer

Puppeteer is a Node.js library that controls Chromium-based browsers via the DevTools Protocol.

Strengths:

• Lightweight, scriptable browser automation for Chromium

• Mature ecosystem and community

• Good for scraping, automation, and custom tooling

• Open source (Apache-2.0)

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Puppeteer is Chromium-only, while Playwright Test supports multiple browsers and includes a first-class runner. Teams that only need Chromium may prefer Puppeteer’s simplicity with a runner of choice.

Best for:

• JS/TS teams focused solely on Chromium-based testing or automation.

17) Repeato

Repeato is a commercial, codeless mobile UI testing tool for iOS and Android, using computer vision.

Strengths:

• Codeless authoring speeds up creation

• Computer vision helps with resilient selectors

• Cloud-friendly and CI integrable

• Focused on mobile platforms

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Playwright Test targets web; Repeato targets native mobile. Use Repeato when mobile coverage is the priority and you want minimal coding.

Best for:

• Product teams seeking rapid, codeless mobile UI automation.

18) RobotJS

RobotJS is an open-source Node.js library for desktop automation at the OS level (Windows, macOS, Linux).

Strengths:

• Keyboard and mouse control for native apps

• Works across major desktop OSes

• Useful for legacy or custom desktop scenarios

• Open source (MIT)

Compared to Playwright Test:

• RobotJS is not a browser-testing tool; it’s for desktop automation. Choose RobotJS if you must automate interactions outside the browser, such as desktop clients or OS dialogs.

Best for:

• QA teams covering native or legacy desktop workflows that browsers cannot handle.

19) Sahi Pro

Sahi Pro is a commercial end-to-end automation tool for web and desktop, designed with enterprise robustness.

Strengths:

• Broad coverage (web/desktop)

• Enterprise-ready features and support

• Strong stability for complex web apps

• CI/CD compatible

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Sahi Pro provides enterprise support and multi-surface coverage. Playwright Test is developer-first and open source. Choose Sahi Pro for enterprise governance and desktop/web hybrids.

Best for:

• Enterprises needing managed support and robust cross-surface testing.

20) Serenity BDD

Serenity BDD is an open-source BDD/e2e framework emphasizing rich reporting and the Screenplay Pattern.

Strengths:

• Detailed, living documentation and reports

• Encourages maintainable test design via Screenplay

• Works with Java/JS ecosystems

• Integrates with CI pipelines

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Serenity BDD emphasizes behavior-driven reporting and design. If stakeholders value narrative documentation and structured roles, Serenity may align better than a pure developer runner.

Best for:

• Teams standardizing on BDD with a need for comprehensive reports and maintainable patterns.

21) Squish

Squish is a commercial GUI test tool for Qt, QML, embedded, desktop, and web apps.

Strengths:

• Deep support for Qt/QML and embedded UIs

• Cross-platform desktop automation

• Multiple scripting languages

• Enterprise-level features and support

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Squish targets domains (Qt/embedded/desktop) where Playwright Test doesn’t operate. Choose Squish if your product spans beyond the browser into native/embedded UIs.

Best for:

• Organizations building Qt/QML or embedded UIs needing robust automated coverage.

22) Storybook Test Runner

Storybook Test Runner executes tests against your Storybook stories, leveraging Playwright under the hood.

Strengths:

• Validates components and stories in isolation

• Ties testing to your component documentation

• Works with visual testing tools

• Open source and CI-friendly

Compared to Playwright Test:

• While it uses Playwright technology, the focus is on Storybook-driven component validation rather than end-to-end flows. It’s ideal if your team already centers development around Storybook.

Best for:

• Component-driven teams who want tests directly against Storybook stories.

23) Stryker

Stryker is an open-source mutation testing framework for Node.js, .NET, and Scala ecosystems.

Strengths:

• Measures test suite effectiveness by injecting code mutations

• Highlights weak spots in test coverage

• Encourages higher-quality tests

• Works across multiple languages

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Stryker is not a functional test runner; it evaluates test quality. Use it to harden your JS/TS test suites (unit or integration) while Playwright Test covers browser behavior.

Best for:

• QA engineers and teams focused on improving the rigor of their test suites.

24) Taiko

Taiko is an open-source browser automation tool by ThoughtWorks for Chromium, with concise, readable APIs.

Strengths:

• Simple, readable API design

• Works well for web e2e on Chromium

• Open source (Apache-2.0)

• Scriptable in Node.js

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Taiko is Chromium-only and does not provide the first-class runner built into Playwright Test. It’s appealing if you value minimal, readable automation and Chromium suffices.

Best for:

• Teams seeking a clean, readable API for Chromium-based e2e tests.

25) TestCafe Studio

TestCafe Studio is the commercial, codeless IDE variant of TestCafe for web UI testing.

Strengths:

• Codeless authoring in a desktop IDE

• Good for non-developer contributors

• Cross-browser execution

• CI/CD integration

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Playwright Test is code-first. TestCafe Studio prioritizes codeless workflows and easier onboarding. Choose it for mixed-skill teams and quick test creation without heavy coding.

Best for:

• Teams that want a codeless IDE to accelerate web test authoring.

26) Testim

Testim, by SmartBear, is an AI-assisted, commercial e2e testing platform for the web.

Strengths:

• Self-healing locators reduce flakiness

• Low-code editor with JS extensibility

• Rich analytics and CI/CD support

• Scales authoring across teams

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Testim focuses on low-code, AI-aided maintenance and enterprise collaboration. Playwright Test offers flexible, code-based control. Pick Testim for faster authoring and reduced maintenance overhead.

Best for:

• Product teams needing scalable, maintainable e2e tests with minimal code.

27) Waldo

Waldo is a codeless mobile UI testing platform for iOS and Android with cloud execution.

Strengths:

• No-code recorder for speedy test creation

• Cloud-based runs and parallelization

• CI-friendly for mobile pipelines

• Focus on mobile app UX

Compared to Playwright Test:

• Waldo targets native mobile apps, while Playwright Test targets web. Consider Waldo when your primary surface is mobile and you want to minimize scripting.

Best for:

• Mobile product teams that prefer codeless authoring and cloud execution.

28) reg-suit

reg-suit is an open-source visual regression tool for the web with CI-friendly workflows.

Strengths:

• Automated screenshot diffing in CI

• Flexible storage and baseline management

• Integrates with component and e2e pipelines

• Open source (MIT)

Compared to Playwright Test:

• reg-suit adds visual regression coverage that Playwright Test does not provide natively. Use them together to validate both behavior and appearance.

Best for:

• Teams that want lightweight, CI-integrated visual regression testing.

Things to Consider Before Choosing a Playwright Test Alternative

• Scope and platforms:

• Language and ecosystem fit:

• Setup and learning curve:

• Execution speed and stability:

• CI/CD integration and reporting:

• Debugging and observability:

• Community and support:

• Scalability:

• Cost and licensing:

• Governance and security:

Conclusion: Choose the Right Tool for the Job

Playwright Test remains a powerful, developer-friendly runner for web testing in JS/TS with first-class tracing and reporting. It is widely adopted for its reliability, speed, and modern browser support. Yet no single tool fits every need. If your testing extends into visual regression, mobile, performance, accessibility, or enterprise-scale governance, the alternatives above may better align with your goals.

• Choose component-centric tools (Playwright Component Testing, Cypress Component Testing, Storybook Test Runner, Loki) for rapid UI feedback at the component level.

• Pick visual testing tools (Applitools Eyes, BackstopJS, reg-suit) when look-and-feel is critical.

• Opt for performance and reliability validation (Artillery) to protect SLAs and user experience under load.

• Adopt accessibility audits (Lighthouse CI, Pa11y) to embed a11y checks into your CI.

• Use API-focused validation (Dredd) to enforce contract-first development.

• Consider low-code/codeless platforms (Katalon, TestCafe Studio, Mabl, Testim, Waldo, Repeato) to accelerate authoring and enable broader team participation.

• Explore desktop/embedded coverage (Squish, RobotJS) when your product goes beyond the browser.

• Keep Playwright’s engine but switch runners or patterns (Playwright with a different runner, Gauge, Serenity BDD) if you prefer BDD, narrative reports, or a different test structure.

The best choice depends on your scope, team skills, and quality goals. Many teams combine tools—using a fast, code-first runner for functional flows and specialized tools for visual, a11y, or performance. Start with your must-have requirements, evaluate a shortlist in a pilot project, and select the combination that provides the greatest coverage with the least maintenance.