Both Playwright and Selenium are popular browser automation tools — but they differ significantly in performance, modern features, and ease of use. 

📊 Selenium vs. Playwright: Choosing the Right Tool for Modern Test Automation (2025) 

Playwright stands out in speed, built-in features, and modern web testing capabilities. Selenium, with its large ecosystem and strong legacy support, remains essential in many enterprise stacks.

🧭 1. Purpose & Ecosystem

Selenium
🔹 Launched in 2004 (originally as Selenium RC)
🔹 Mature ecosystem with support for Java, Python, C#, Ruby
🔹 Widely used in enterprise and legacy environments
🔹 Relies on external test runners like JUnit or TestNG

Playwright
🚀 Introduced by Microsoft in 2020
🌐 Officially supports JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Java, .NET
📦 Includes a built-in test runner (for JS/TS)
👥 Smaller but fast-growing community focused on modern web testing

⚡ 2. Speed & Performance

Selenium
🐢 Slower due to use of the WebDriver protocol, which introduces network latency
🔄 Heavily reliant on the browser driver for every interaction
⚠️ May require additional explicit waits for reliability

Playwright
⚡ Designed for speed and reliability, with direct browser control
⏱️ Supports auto-waiting for elements and conditions by default
🧪 Optimized for parallel execution and efficient context management

Startup time:
Selenium has a slower startup time due to its reliance on external browser drivers and setup. In contrast, Playwright launches browsers quickly and runs in headless mode by default, making it faster out of the box.

Execution speed:
Selenium tends to be slower, especially when working with legacy browsers or older versions. Playwright is optimized for modern engines like Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit, offering significantly faster execution.

Auto-waiting:
With Selenium, developers often need to manually add waits or conditions to handle dynamic content. Playwright includes smart auto-waiting for elements and events, greatly reducing flakiness and boilerplate code.

👉 Playwright clearly wins in speed and performance — it’s faster, more reliable, and better suited for testing today’s dynamic web apps.

🎯 3. Features Comparison

Cross-Browser Support

• Selenium: Supports Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge

• Playwright: Supports Chrome, Firefox, and WebKit (Safari engine!)
  
  

Mobile Device Emulation

• Selenium: Possible, but requires manual setup and effort

• Playwright: Built-in device emulation for responsive testing
  
  

Multiple Tabs / Contexts

• Selenium: Tricky and often unreliable across browsers

• Playwright: Built-in support for multi-tab and multi-context testing
  
  

Native Event Handling

• Selenium: Basic; may require workarounds for complex UI interactions

• Playwright: Rich interaction support (hover, drag-and-drop, keyboard, etc.)
  
  

Network Mocking

• Selenium: Requires external tools or proxies

• Playwright: Built-in mocking via route() method — intercepts and modifies requests easily
  
  

Visual Testing

• Selenium: Not supported natively — needs third-party tools like Applitools

• Playwright: Supports native screenshots and video recording for visual verification
  
  

CI/CD Integration

• Selenium: Strong legacy support, widely used in Jenkins and enterprise CI pipelines

• Playwright: DevOps-friendly — designed for modern pipelines (supports headless, Docker, and parallel test runs)
  
  

💻 4. Language Support

• Selenium: Java, C#, Python, Ruby, JavaScript

• Playwright: JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Java, .NET

➡️ Selenium is better for Java-heavy teams.
➡️ Playwright is great for modern web devs using JS/TS or Python.

✅ 5. Testing Use Cases

Choose Playwright if:

✅ You’re testing modern web apps (React, SPAs)

✅ You want fast, stable, and auto-waited tests

✅ You use JavaScript, Python, or modern stacks

✅ You want built-in features like video, tracing, network mocking

Choose Selenium if:

✅ You’re in a legacy Java/C# enterprise setup

✅ You need broad browser versions or integrations

✅ You already have a large Selenium codebase

Recommended Solutions for Salesforce, SAP, Oracle EBS & Oracle RMB 

When it comes to testing enterprise-grade platforms such as Salesforce, SAP, Oracle EBS, and Oracle RMB, choosing the right automation tool matters. These systems often involve complex UIs, heavy customizations, and legacy constraints, making some tools a better fit than others.

🌀 1. Salesforce Testing

Challenges: Dynamic DOM, Shadow DOM, iframes, and frequent UI updates

Recommended Tools:

• Provar – Salesforce-specific test automation with metadata awareness

• Testim / Functionize – AI-assisted testing with Salesforce object support

• Playwright / Selenium – Open-source options (require custom locators and smart waits)

• UFT Developer – Good for desktop + web hybrid flows (limited metadata awareness)

• Salesforce DX + Jest (for LWC) – Unit testing Lightning Web Components
  
  

🛠️ 2. SAP Testing (UI5, ECC, S/4HANA)

Challenges: Proprietary UI5 framework, legacy components, SAP Fiori complexity

Recommended Tools:

• Tricentis Tosca – Strong SAP UI5 support + risk-based testing

• Micro Focus UFT One – Longstanding SAP integration

• SAP CBTA (Component-Based Test Automation) – Built-in for SAP Solution Manager

• Worksoft Certify – No-code SAP-focused testing for complex workflows

• Open-source fallback: Selenium + SAP-specific locators (with heavy customization)
  
  

🧮 3. Oracle EBS (E-Business Suite)

Challenges: Oracle Forms, custom workflows, data-heavy validation

Recommended Tools:

• Oracle Application Testing Suite (OATS) – Native tool with functional and load testing

• Opkey – Oracle-certified platform with pre-built test packs

• Selenium + Java – Only viable for web-based Oracle EBS modules

• UFT One – Robust legacy support for Forms and web integration

• Katalon Studio – Emerging support with some customization
  
  

🧾 4. Oracle RMB (Revenue Management & Billing)

Challenges: Custom rules engines, data-driven validations, integration complexity

Recommended Tools:

• UFT Developer / UFT One – Good support for hybrid enterprise apps

• API Testing: Postman, REST Assured, or SoapUI for service-layer validation

• JMeter / BlazeMeter – For billing performance/load simulation

• Custom frameworks – Java or Python-based frameworks tailored to API + DB validation
  
  

📌 Tool Selection Tips for ERP Testing

• Prioritize enterprise tool support and ERP-specific accelerators (e.g., Tricentis, Provar, Worksoft)

• Combine UI + API + database validation for full coverage

• Evaluate integration with ALM, CI/CD, and test data management (TDM) tools

• Consider total cost of ownership, skill availability, and scalability

Framework tips, tool selection, and test strategies for legacy + modern enterprise platforms

From Salesforce Lightning and SAP Fiori to Oracle EBS and Oracle RMB, this guide helps you choose the right tools and design automation frameworks that work across complex, hybrid enterprise systems — all within your CI/CD pipeline. 

✅ Salesforce (Lightning UI)

• Playwright: Excellent choice for modern Salesforce Lightning apps. Handles dynamic components, custom modals, and asynchronous behavior smoothly. Auto-waiting and support for iframes are major advantages.

• Selenium: Still viable but requires more manual waits and handling of dynamic IDs.

Note: Playwright handles Shadow DOM and dynamic components better

🟢 Playwright preferred for new test automation projects. 

✅ SAP Fiori (SAP HANA Web Apps)

• Playwright: Works well with Fiori/UI5 apps due to its SPA-friendly design. Requires careful handling of custom controls and shadow DOM, but it’s powerful.

• Selenium: Also supported, but often more brittle and verbose with dynamic UIs.

Note: Playwright offers better reliability with dynamic UI5 controls

🟢 Playwright better for Fiori; Selenium has wider community templates.

⚠️ SAP GUI (Windows Client or WebGUI)

• Playwright: ❌ Not supported. Cannot interact with desktop SAP GUI or complex WebGUI sessions.

• Selenium: ⚠️ Limited support via HTML GUI, but not ideal

Note: Use SAP GUI Scripting or WinAppDriver for automation

🔴 Neither is ideal — use SAP GUI Scripting or WinAppDriver.

✅ Oracle EBS (HTML-based Forms / OAF Pages)

• Playwright: Can work for newer HTML-based UIs, but may struggle with older Oracle Forms or iframes-heavy layouts.

• Selenium: Better support in legacy environments; integrates well with Java-based automation tools.

Note: Selenium has better compatibility with legacy Oracle tech 

🟡 Selenium preferred for legacy Oracle apps; Playwright okay for modernized modules.

⚠️ Oracle RMB (OUAF-based)

• Playwright: Can automate if the UI is fully web-based and modernized. Struggles with Java-heavy or iframe-nested layouts.

• Selenium: Has broader usage in Oracle environments due to long-standing compatibility with complex enterprise setups.

Note: Consider combining Selenium with API and DB validation layers

🟡 Use Selenium unless Oracle RMB UI has been modernized to HTML5 standards.

🧰 What Is UFT Developer?

UFT Developer is a code-based test automation solution from Micro Focus, designed for developers and SDETs. It complements the more GUI-driven UFT One (Unified Functional Testing) by allowing scripted tests in modern languages like Java, C#, and JavaScript.

✅ When UFT Developer Is Worth Considering

You’re in a Micro Focus ecosystem:

• Using UFT One, ALM/QC, or LoadRunner

• Need seamless integration with Micro Focus tools

Enterprise testing requirements:

• Legacy apps (SAP GUI, Oracle Forms, Siebel, etc.)

• Rich-client applications that Playwright/Selenium can’t handle

You want a hybrid of GUI and code-first testing:

• UFT Developer brings object-oriented scripting with the power of UFT’s object identification engine

Strong reporting needs out-of-the-box:

• Comes with detailed logs, screenshots, and native integration with ALM

❌ When UFT Developer is Not the Best Choice

You’re testing modern web apps only:

• Playwright or Selenium is faster, lighter, and free

• UFT Developer can feel heavyweight for simple web UI testing

You need cross-platform flexibility:

• Playwright works on Linux, Mac, Windows

• UFT Developer is more Windows-centric

Cost is a concern:

• It’s a licensed, enterprise-grade tool

• Requires budget and vendor commitment

🧠 Summary: UFT Developer vs Modern Tools

If you’re testing legacy enterprise apps (like SAP GUI, Oracle Forms, mainframes, or custom Windows apps), UFT Developer is a strong candidate — especially within organizations already using Micro Focus tools.

For modern full-stack development, Playwright, Selenium, or Cypress are more flexible, faster, and cost-effective.

⚔️ Playwright vs Selenium: What Should You Use in 2025?

Both Playwright and Selenium are popular browser automation tools — but they differ significantly in performance, modern features, and ease of use.

💡 Takeaway

Selecting the “best” test automation tool isn’t about following trends — it’s about choosing the solution that aligns with your architecture, business constraints, and the return on investment you’re aiming for.

From my experience:

• UFT Developer is ideal when your environment is deeply integrated with Micro Focus tools or involves legacy UI technologies that demand specialized support.

• Playwright is the best fit for modern, agile teams working with component-driven, dynamic web applications, where speed, reliability, and flexibility are critical.

• Selenium remains a reliable choice for enterprise ecosystems with diverse tech stacks, established practices, and the need for broad browser and language compatibility. It is still a stable choice in complex enterprise ecosystems with large-scale adoption and legacy compatibility.

Enterprise apps often blend old and new technologies. Selenium offers strong backward compatibility, while Playwright excels with modern, dynamic interfaces. The best tool often depends on your tech stack maturity, team skills, and automation goals.

In other words, enterprise applications often reflect a hybrid landscape — combining modern web architectures with legacy systems that are too critical to replace.

• Selenium delivers proven stability and backward compatibility.

• Playwright offers cutting-edge automation capabilities for evolving front-ends.

• UFT Developer fills the niche where deep integration with desktop or legacy UI layers is still essential.

Ultimately, the most effective automation strategy isn’t about the most powerful tool — it’s about using the right tool, in the right context, to create scalable, resilient, and value-driven test solutions.

In several enterprise-grade projects, I led test automation as an SDET across platforms like Salesforce, SAP, Oracle EBS, Oracle RMB, and custom-built internal systems. These applications combined highly dynamic UIs, deep business workflows, and legacy integrations — posing significant testing challenges.

As a lead automation engineer, I encountered a wide range of technical and organizational challenges — including tool limitations, integration hurdles, and tight delivery timelines.

🔍 The Challenge

The enterprise applications under test were built on complex frameworks such as Oracle ADF, OUAF, SAPUI5, and Salesforce Lightning. These platforms introduced significant automation challenges due to:

• Highly dynamic UIs with deep nesting, iframe dependencies, and frequent DOM mutations

• Custom components and proprietary rendering engines, making element identification non-trivial

• Business logic spread across multiple backend services, data layers, and integration points, requiring full end-to-end coverage

• Strict SLAs and sprint commitments, demanding fast and reliable test feedback

• A fragmented tool landscape — automation tools differed in feature sets, vendor support, and long-term viability

• Variability in client budgets, programming environments, and QA team skills, requiring adaptable tooling strategies

Context-aware automation strategy

To address the wide range of technical and organizational complexities across enterprise environments, I developed a context-aware automation strategy. This strategy focused on flexibility, scalability, and measurable ROI, and included the following key actions:

✅ Tool-Tailored Testing

• For modern, component-heavy UIs (Salesforce Lightning, SAP Fiori), I will prioritize tools like Playwright for their superior handling of dynamic content, async events, and auto-wait capabilities.

• In legacy-heavy environments (Oracle Forms, OUAF, SAP GUI), I leveraged UFT Developer for its deep support of desktop and non-standard web interfaces.

• For broad compatibility projects, where multiple teams or legacy scripts were in play, Selenium was chosen for its stability, cross-language support, and wide adoption.

🧠 Decision Framework

I evaluated tools using a decision matrix that weighed:

• UI complexity and DOM behavior

• Test execution speed and stability

• Integration with CI/CD pipelines

• Team skillsets and onboarding effort

• Cost and licensing constraints

In every case, I made strategic decisions based on:

• The architecture of the application under test

• The available tools in the market

• Budget constraints and ROI expectations

• Long-term maintainability and team skillsets

I evaluated tools like Selenium, Playwright, and UFT Developer not just by features, but by how well they aligned with business needs.

✅ Selenium gave flexibility across diverse tech stacks
✅ Playwright delivered speed and stability for modern apps
✅ UFT Developer provided deep integration for legacy enterprise systems

🔁 Agile & CI/CD Integration

• Aligned automation pipelines with sprint goals and release timelines

• Embedded automation into CI workflows (e.g., GitLab, Jenkins, Azure DevOps)

• Ensured feedback loops were tight enough to catch regressions early, without slowing delivery

📈 Measurable Outcomes

• Reduced manual testing overhead by up to 70%

• Cut regression cycles from days to hours

• Increased test maintainability and reduced flaky test rates across all environments

By tailoring the automation strategy to each project’s context, I consistently delivered scalable, maintainable, and ROI-driven test automation frameworks that accelerated release velocity and reduced manual effort.