Playwright vs. SeleniumBox (SBOX)

Easy to code and help in sanity regression and functional test cases

Incentivized

In a project, where 1000+ scripts need to be executed only in less time there using selenium box as parallel execution can help a lot. We can use a selenium box to save the time of the execution and it also is very easy to use. It saves a lot of time while doing parallel execution.

Incentivized

• API
• UI
• Performance

Incentivized

• bigger adoption
• mobile testing

Incentivized

It makes automating complex user interactions easier, fits right into our CI/CD for continuous testing, and works great across different browsers. The Documentation is a plus, you don't really need to search a lot to understand and find what you need for the coding. The community is small but very helpful, which makes it a breeze to use and a must-have for keeping our software in top shape.

Incentivized

We selected Playwright over the rest for several reasons. The learning curve is faster, making it easier for our team to get up to speed quickly. The setup is pretty straithtforwared, minimal configurartion needed and a great example included in the configuration which includes all the basics to start writing using that spec as a placeholder. Compared to Cypress, Playwright support multiple browsers out of the box, giving us broader testing coverage. Appium is great for mobile testing, but extremely slow.

Incentivized

Did not use any other.

Incentivized

• Reduce of cost of manual testers
• Reduce of released bugs
• Reduce of costs of developer time
• Increase QA Coverage

Incentivized