Why Playwright Seems to Be Winning Over Cypress for End-to-End Testing

Why Playwright Seems to Be Winning Over Cypress for End-to-End Testing

~ 5 min read

#testing #tools #web development

If you have been choosing an end-to-end stack in the last year or two, you have probably noticed a pattern: many teams that once defaulted to Cypress now start with Playwright.

This is not because Cypress became unusable. It is still a productive tool.

It is because Playwright lines up better with what modern test suites need: speed in CI, reliability under async UI behaviour, broad browser coverage, and fewer architectural edge cases as apps get more complex.

The short answer

Playwright appears to be winning mostly on five points:

  1. Better browser architecture for complex real-world flows.
  2. Stronger defaults for reliability (auto-waiting plus locators).
  3. Faster CI scaling with parallelism and sharding.
  4. Better debugging artefacts (trace viewer, video, screenshots, network).
  5. Cleaner path for multi-browser and multi-context testing.

Cypress can still be a good fit, especially for teams that value its interactive runner and already have a mature suite. But if you are starting fresh in 2026, Playwright is often the safer long-term default.

1) Architecture matters more than people expect

At a high level, Cypress runs inside the browser and tightly couples test execution with the app page lifecycle. That gave Cypress a great developer experience early on, but it also introduced hard constraints in some scenarios.

Playwright drives the browser from the outside using browser automation protocols. Practically, this gives you cleaner handling of:

  1. Multiple tabs and pop-ups.
  2. Cross-origin journeys.
  3. Browser contexts (isolated sessions).
  4. Lower-level network and protocol controls.

As soon as your product flow leaves a single-document happy path (OAuth, payment redirects, admin + user session testing), this architectural difference becomes visible.

2) Reliability on modern UIs is usually better in Playwright

Modern frontends are asynchronous by default:

  1. Deferred hydration.
  2. Streaming or incremental rendering.
  3. Heavy client-side state transitions.
  4. Background data refresh.

Flaky tests usually come from mismatches between test timing and UI readiness.

Playwright’s locator model and web-first assertions reduce this class of failures because actions and assertions wait for actionable states by default.

Example in Playwright:

await page.getByRole("button", { name: "Save" }).click();
await expect(page.getByText("Changes saved")).toBeVisible();

Equivalent Cypress code can be clean too, but teams often end up layering explicit timing workarounds over time, especially in legacy suites.

3) CI throughput is where Playwright often pulls ahead

Once your suite grows, local ergonomics matter less than CI economics.

Playwright ships with a first-party test runner designed around parallel workers, projects, retries, sharding, and reporting in one coherent package.

That usually means:

  1. Easier horizontal scaling in CI.
  2. Better control of test isolation via browser contexts.
  3. Predictable retries without hiding systematic failure modes.

In practical terms, teams can keep feedback loops short even as the suite expands. That is a major reason technical leaders pick Playwright for new projects.

4) Debugging failure is faster with richer artefacts

When a flaky failure appears in CI, the question is not “did it fail?” The question is “can I root-cause it quickly?”

Playwright’s trace viewer is a strong differentiator here. You can replay a failed run step by step with DOM snapshots, network timing, console messages, screenshots, and action logs in one timeline.

Cypress has good debugging UX in local interactive mode. But for remote CI triage at scale, many teams find Playwright’s trace workflow faster and more complete.

5) Multi-browser support feels more native

Playwright treats Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit as first-class projects in a single config.

import { defineConfig, devices } from "@playwright/test";

export default defineConfig({
    projects: [
        { name: "chromium", use: { ...devices["Desktop Chrome"] } },
        { name: "firefox", use: { ...devices["Desktop Firefox"] } },
        { name: "webkit", use: { ...devices["Desktop Safari"] } },
    ],
});

For teams shipping to Safari-heavy audiences, this lowers the friction of real cross-browser confidence.

6) One tool can now cover more testing layers

Many teams now use Playwright for:

  1. Full E2E browser tests.
  2. API-level setup and verification.
  3. Authentication state bootstrapping.
  4. Component testing (where appropriate).

Consolidating these layers into one ecosystem can reduce maintenance overhead. Even if you still use unit and integration tests elsewhere, it can simplify test tooling decisions.

7) Cost and ownership can influence the decision

Tooling decisions are not only technical. They are also operational and financial.

Teams often evaluate:

  1. Which features require paid platform add-ons.
  2. How much can be run self-managed in existing CI.
  3. How portable test artefacts are across vendors.

Depending on your setup, Playwright’s open tooling model can feel easier to adopt without platform lock-in concerns.

Where Cypress still makes sense

Cypress is still a strong choice when:

  1. Your team already has a stable Cypress suite with acceptable run times.
  2. Your app is mostly single-origin and single-tab.
  3. You strongly prefer Cypress’s interactive local runner style.
  4. Migration cost is higher than expected reliability gains.

If that is your context, staying with Cypress can be the right engineering decision.

A pragmatic migration pattern

If you want to move without disruption, do it in phases:

  1. Keep existing Cypress tests running.
  2. Start all new high-value flows in Playwright.
  3. Migrate only flaky or high-maintenance Cypress specs first.
  4. Standardise selectors (data-testid) and page-object or fixture patterns.
  5. Revisit after 1-2 release cycles and decide whether full migration is worth it.

This avoids a big-bang rewrite and lets real CI data drive the decision.

Final take

Playwright seems to be winning because it aligns with current software delivery constraints: reliability under async UI behaviour, faster CI scaling, stronger debugging data, and fewer architectural dead ends in complex flows.

Cypress is not obsolete. But in many teams, the default has shifted.

If your E2E strategy is being defined today, Playwright is usually the more future-proof baseline, while Cypress remains a valid option where the suite is already healthy and the product flow is relatively simple.

all posts →