Playwright is excellent. It is fast, reliable, supports multiple browsers, handles modern web applications well, and has a thriving ecosystem. If you are writing browser automation tests today, Playwright is likely your best choice for a low-level framework. We know this firsthand because Qate uses Playwright under the hood for all web test execution.
So this is not a "Playwright bad, AI good" article. The question is more nuanced: when does writing raw Playwright scripts make sense, and when does an AI layer on top of Playwright deliver better results? Understanding the tradeoffs helps you choose the right approach for each testing scenario — and in many cases, the answer is both.
What Raw Playwright Gives You
Playwright is a browser automation library. It launches a browser, navigates to pages, interacts with elements, and asserts conditions. It gives you complete programmatic control over the browser, which is both its greatest strength and its primary limitation.
Full Control
With Playwright, you write code. Every click, every assertion, every wait condition is explicit. You decide exactly which selector to use, when to wait for a network response, how to handle a popup. For scenarios requiring precise orchestration — testing race conditions, validating pixel-level rendering, or interacting with browser APIs — this control is essential.
Transparent Behavior
There is no magic in a Playwright script. When a test fails, you read the code, see what it tried to do, and understand why. The debugging cycle is straightforward: reproduce, inspect, fix, rerun.
Rich Ecosystem and Cost
Playwright's ecosystem includes visual comparison testing, API utilities, code generators, trace viewers, and CI integrations. The tool itself is free and open source. The indirect cost — engineering time to write, maintain, and debug tests — is where the real expense lies.
Where Raw Playwright Hits Its Limits
For all its strengths, Playwright leaves several hard problems for the user to solve.
The Maintenance Burden
A Playwright test is tightly coupled to the application's implementation. When a CSS class changes, the selector breaks. When a component is restructured, the XPath breaks. When a new step is added to a workflow, the entire test flow breaks. These are not bugs in Playwright — they are inherent to any selector-based automation approach.
Teams with large Playwright suites typically report spending 40-60% of their automation effort on maintenance. That is time not spent writing new tests or improving coverage. The suite becomes a liability that demands constant attention just to stay functional.
The Authoring Bottleneck
Writing Playwright tests requires JavaScript or TypeScript proficiency, understanding of async/await, familiarity with the Playwright API, and knowledge of CSS or XPath selectors. A QA analyst who understands the application deeply but does not write code cannot contribute directly. The bottleneck is not understanding what to test — it is translating that understanding into code.
The Coverage Problem
Because each test takes significant time to write, teams are selective about what they automate. Critical paths get covered. Edge cases do not. Coverage plateaus at whatever level the team can sustain with available automation engineers.
Cross-Platform Gaps
Playwright excels at web browser testing. It does not test Windows desktop applications or SOAP web services. If your product includes a desktop client, a REST API, and a web interface, Playwright covers one of the three.
What an AI Layer Adds
An AI-powered testing platform that uses Playwright as its execution engine preserves Playwright's strengths — reliability, speed, browser coverage — while addressing its limitations through intelligence.
Conversational Test Creation
Instead of writing code, you describe what you want to test in plain language. The AI translates this into a Playwright test that navigates the application, interacts with elements, and asserts expected outcomes. QA analysts, product managers, and developers can all create tests in language they are comfortable with. For a deeper look, see our guide on conversational test creation.
Self-Healing Execution
When the application changes and a selector breaks, the AI evaluates alternative strategies, adapts the test, and verifies it still validates the original intent. This addresses the largest cost center in Playwright maintenance — instead of engineers updating selectors after a UI refactor, the AI handles adaptations in real time.
Automatic Test Discovery
Point the AI at your application and let it explore. Discovery mode autonomously navigates the interface, identifies testable flows, and generates 30-40 test cases per session. These generated tests cover scenarios that manual authoring typically misses — edge cases, error paths, unusual navigation patterns — and they are generated in hours rather than weeks.
Cross-Platform Reach
Because the AI layer abstracts the test creation and execution, the same interface and workflow extends beyond web testing to Windows desktop applications, REST APIs, and SOAP web services. You learn one tool and one workflow. The AI handles the platform-specific details for each target.
When to Use Each Approach
Use Raw Playwright When:
- You need pixel-level control. Visual regression testing, browser API interactions, or tests requiring direct browser state manipulation.
- You are testing Playwright-specific features. Network interception, request mocking, or custom browser contexts.
- Your team is small and deeply technical. A team of senior engineers fluent in Playwright may not benefit from an abstraction layer.
- You have a stable, rarely-changing UI. Low UI change frequency means low maintenance burden and less value from self-healing.
Use AI-Powered Testing When:
- Your team includes non-coders who understand the product. Conversational test creation unlocks their domain knowledge.
- Maintenance is consuming too much time. Self-healing recovers time lost to broken selectors and changed workflows.
- You need broader coverage quickly. Discovery mode generates comprehensive suites in hours.
- You test across platforms. Web, desktop, REST, and SOAP from a single tool.
Use Both Together
This is the most common pattern. Teams use raw Playwright for the small number of tests that require precise low-level control, and Qate's AI layer for the bulk of the test suite where speed of creation, self-healing maintenance, and broad coverage matter more than implementation-level control.
Qate exports generated tests as standard Playwright code. There is no vendor lock-in. If you decide to take the generated tests and maintain them manually, you can. The code is yours, written in standard Playwright syntax, executable without any Qate dependencies.
The Practical Choice
The question is not which technology is better. Playwright is a powerful engine. AI is a powerful driver. Together, they go further than either goes alone. Start with the problems you are trying to solve — maintenance overhead, coverage gaps, authoring bottleneck, cross-platform needs — and choose the approach that addresses them.
Ready to transform your testing? Start for free and experience AI-powered testing today.