Appium vs. Playwright vs. TestComplete

1. It's open source which supports range of languages, operating systems and languages. Well suited for Android and IOS mobile automation. Supports all kinds of apps, which makes it flexible and robust mobile testing tool 2. It is less appropriate where we need intercept network call to verify the API calls. Extensive coding experience is required to work Appium

Incentivized

Playwright is very well suited for any kind of frontend QA regression testing. It's perfect for ensuring that important features that are not often updated remain fully functional across updates or releases. It is not well suited for testing a feature that requires more developer updates before it is ready for end users. Playwright tests are not always simple to maintain if frequent updates are required to keep them relevant. Playwright can be used for API or database assertions as well, but it's not necessarily best suited for those scenarios. It does perform well enough to consider that use case for simplicity if Playwright is already relevant for any frontend QA regression tests that are needed.

Incentivized

Best suited to smaller unit test or tests broken up, couple of forms at a time Not suited - larger regressions test involving multiple systems. - my main regression involving payments has been unsuccessful for the last 3 years despite all working fine separately and while being watched

• It uses WebDriver API so it makes it easy to use for former web test automation engineers.
• It can be managed via the command line via an extensive set of parameters.
• It handles implicit waits at the server side that is especially valuable in distributed infrastructure.

Incentivized

• automation
• integrations
• support
• community
• features
• easy to use
• documentation

Incentivized

• Identifying UI objects and application structure
• Expandability of tests through scripts and script extensions/plugins
• low barrier of entry (you can get started quickly, and other's don't need much explanation to contribute on a basic level)
• Possibility of Jira integration for reporting
• Relatively few (and usually easy to solve) git conflicts when working simultaneously
• easy handling of test data, also for iterative tests

Incentivized

• Element browser sometimes is unreliable and has sporadic fails.
• Appium running is a bit slow, compared to tests written with Appium and with Espresso or XCTest.

Incentivized

• UI
• API
• Performance

Incentivized

• TestComplete could stand to have a simplified view for different types of users. For instance, as a manager/architecture guy, I'm not so interested in getting into the code and am more interested in file-based interactions.
• TestComplete could use more integration with reporting for things like TeamCity to improve test status visibility.

Incentivized

I am rating 10/10 because Appium can use with multiple programming languages with multiple Test engines. Also, it works for both Android and iOS.

Incentivized

We have bigger test automation pack using test complete at the same time we also think this is not good performing tool for large number of test automation scripts.

Incentivized

I would like to give 9/10 rating to Appium because of it can easily integrate with popular frameworks and CI/CD tools, as well as it is reliable, flexible and easy to use. The setup can bit complex in initial step, but once on configured it's very easy to use and enables stable and scalable mobile automation for real and cloud devices.

Incentivized

I find Playwright very intuitive and generally do not have any trouble using it on a daily basis. However, I do have coworkers with more limited experience in software who have struggled immensely in learning to use Playwright properly. Playwright is very well documented which helps if you plan to use AI to help you write any test automation (which I generally don't recommend, but is an option).

Incentivized

It is usable when you become accustomed to its quirks. Not using it for two months and then you need to re-learn the quirks for some features (but some quirks are so awful that they will never fade from your memory). So, when using it regularly, it is possible to be quite productive, if no big correction in name mapping is needed.

Incentivized

Some bugs were quickly resolved, but most UX quirks of the tool are just marked "as designed". No follow up for enhancement request.

Incentivized

If you develop a mobile application and your testing process goes in cloud, probably you will face a problem - how to implement a stable connection between your mobile devices and testing servers

Incentivized

If you're an Apple developer, you use Xcode. It's practically a forced necessity. For system testing though, it doesn't have to be. You can have your development team focus on unit and integration tests in their platform and another team automate acceptance tests with a language they are more familiar with.

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

TestComplete stacks up against them in terms of GUI and seamless performance. It records each and every step and action been performed in the application and produces a detailed report in a well-structured manner. It can connect and access seamlessly among various databases directly to speed up the testing process.

Incentivized

• Appium is open source, so it's free. That's budget friendly right there.
• The ability to write mobile automation tests has saved considerable time for our manual test team, but that is true with most automation tests.
• We use Sauce Labs with our other automation, but Appium works great with Sauce Labs, as well, if I needed to run on emulators and simulators.

Incentivized

• Usable
• customisable
• extendable

Incentivized

• Saves hundreds of man-hours with either QA testing or data entry
• With the small cost of the product, it has saved the company money with both employee costs as well as the cost of mistakes made by human error or software bugs

Incentivized