Both tools are mature and both can test a React or Next.js app well. The choice comes down to architecture and team needs. I default to Playwright for new projects. Here's why, and when I wouldn't.
At a glance
| Playwright | Cypress | |
|---|---|---|
| Runs tests | Outside the browser, via automation protocols | Inside the browser |
| Browsers | Chromium, Firefox, WebKit | Chromium-family, Firefox; WebKit experimental |
| Languages | TS/JS, Python, Java, .NET | JS/TS |
| Parallelism | Built in (workers, sharding) | Via paid cloud or third-party tools |
| Multi-tab / multi-origin | Natural | Supported with constraints |
| Debugging | Trace viewer, UI mode, codegen | Time-travel runner |
| Component testing | Experimental | Mature |
Why I default to Playwright
- Real WebKit coverage, which matters if many users are on Safari.
- Parallel by default, so CI is faster without paid add-ons.
- Trace viewer: a recorded trace of failing CI runs makes flaky tests far easier to debug.
- Auto-waiting locators (
getByRole,getByLabel) encourage accessible markup.
import { test, expect } from "@playwright/test"; test("user can sign up", async ({ page }) => { await page.goto("/signup"); await page.getByLabel("Email").fill("test@example.com"); await page.getByRole("button", { name: "Create account" }).click(); await expect(page.getByText("Check your inbox")).toBeVisible(); });
When Cypress is the better fit
- Your team already has a large, healthy Cypress suite.
- You rely heavily on component testing in the same tool.
- You value Cypress's interactive runner for test-writing workflow.
What matters more than the tool
- Test critical user journeys, not every pixel.
- Use accessible selectors, not CSS classes.
- Keep tests independent with their own data.
- Run on every PR.
More on what to test in How to Test React Apps.