Playwright vs. BitBar

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

CrossBrowserTesting is a great tool to use when you have a new page or new content that you want to test on an array of devices/browsers. In the diverse online world nowadays, it is nearly impossible to ensure optimization for every case. CBT allows you to get closer to that goal.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• Allows me to test on our development server with ease which is behind a firewall.
• Using automation for my tests.
• Screenshots of the problems on each page.
• Ability to jump between screen sizes quickly.

Incentivized

• UI
• API
• Performance

Incentivized

• Test case support is somewhat limited in customization ability.
• Not a unique problem to them (or their 'fault'), but content behind VPN or intranet cannot be scanned.
• Pricing with tier level and features can sometimes be confusing (ie. what is and what is not included).

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

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

Selenium: 1. Selenium is Open source tool 2. Needs proper framework development and integration with multiple 3rd party tools 3. Not much secure 4. Needs scripting knowledge for people working on it 5. takes time and effort CrossBrowser Testing: 1. Licensed , so secure 2. Less time , less effort 3. Quick results 4. No scripting language knowledge needed 5. More coverage 6. Without any framework creation also we can test on multiple devices/browsers

Incentivized

• Usable
• customisable
• extendable

Incentivized

• By using CrossBrowserTesting we are saving many hours a week in manual work hours.
• Our automated Selenium tests run in a fraction of the time it takes to manually test our components, so we can spend more time building great user experiences and less time triaging bugs.