ava vs playwright
Side-by-side comparison of ava and playwright
- Weekly Downloads
- 580.2K
- Stars
- 20.9K
- Gzip Size
- 942 B
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 3mo ago
- Open Issues
- 63
- Forks
- 1.4K
- Unpacked Size
- 289.4 kB
- Dependencies
- 1
- Weekly Downloads
- 34.4M
- Stars
- 82.3K
- Gzip Size
- 820.6 kB
- License
- Apache-2.0
- Last Updated
- 1d ago
- Open Issues
- 596
- Forks
- 5.1K
- Unpacked Size
- 3.7 MB
- Dependencies
- 8
Download Trends
Verdict
ava is tailored for Node.js unit testing with a focus on simplicity and concurrency, making it ideal for developers looking for a fast and efficient test runner. In contrast, playwright serves broader automation needs across various web browsers, suitable for comprehensive end-to-end testing in modern web applications.
When choosing between them, consider your project's focus: if you require fast, straightforward testing for JavaScript code, ava is a solid choice. For teams working on web applications that demand extensive browser interactions, playwright's capabilities to handle multiple browsers and contexts make it the better option.
Teams migrating from one to the other should be mindful of the differences in complexity and scope. Transitioning to playwright may involve a steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set compared to the more straightforward approach of ava.
Detailed Comparison
| Criteria | ava | playwright |
|---|---|---|
| License | ✓MIT license promotes usage and modification. | Apache-2.0 license has more restrictions. |
| Version | Older version released in 2025. | ✓Newer version released in 2026. |
| Team Fit | Suitable for smaller teams focused on JavaScript tests. | ✓Fits larger teams handling diverse web testing scenarios. |
| Description | Focused on Node.js testing. | ✓High-level API for browser automation. |
| Open Issues | ✓Lower number of issues suggests project stability. | Higher issues may reflect ongoing active development. |
| GitHub Stars | Good star count reflects community interest. | ✓Significantly higher star count indicates popularity. |
| Unpacked Size | ✓Smaller size, more lightweight. | Larger size due to extensive features. |
| Learning Curve | ✓Easy to learn for simple testing needs. | More complex to master, but powerful. |
| Target Use Case | Best for unit testing in Node.js. | ✓Ideal for end-to-end and automation testing. |
| Weekly Downloads | Moderate downloads indicating steady use. | ✓High downloads show widespread adoption. |
| Bundle Size (gzip) | ✓Minimal at 942 B, promoting efficiency. | Larger size at 820.6 kB. |
| Concurrency Support | Strong concurrency capabilities. | Offers extensive parallel execution across browsers. |