Choosing an E2E tool is a decision for years, because the way tests are written, how failures are diagnosed and the cost of maintenance all depend on it. On the modern frontend the debate is most often between Playwright and Cypress, and both are mature. This book is built on Playwright, but not because it is "trendier": it has concrete engineering properties that, for a new multi-browser project, give a more direct model and a wider matrix of environments.
The first difference is browser coverage and the control model. Playwright runs tests in Chromium, Firefox and WebKit and drives the browser from the outside, through ordinary async/await: the test reads as sequential code. Cypress is historically strong in the Chrome family and Firefox, and its commands line up into the framework's internal queue. For a project that cares about real cross-browser support, including WebKit, Playwright's coverage is a weighty argument.
The second is isolation and parallelism. Playwright creates a new BrowserContext per test - a fast equivalent of a clean profile - and out of the box provides workers and sharding for parallel runs and splitting across CI machines. Cypress also isolates state between tests and scales locally and through its own cloud. The difference is not in whether isolation exists but in that Playwright's parallelism is built into the runner and configured by config without an external service.
The third is diagnostics, and here both have strong but different approaches. Playwright gives the UI Mode, the Inspector and the Trace Viewer: a trace with a timeline, DOM snapshots, network and console lets you take a failure apart after the fact, even on CI you cannot enter by hand. Cypress is known for the interactive Command Log, where you see every step live. For debugging unstable failures on CI specifically, Playwright's recorded trace is usually handier than a live log you have no access to.
It helps to gather the key criteria into one table so the choice rests on properties, not on fashion. Below is a compact comparison along the axes that really affect a suite's architecture: browsers, model, isolation, parallelism, diagnostics and who each tool suits better.
| Criterion | Playwright 1.62 |
|---|
| Cypress 15.19 |
|---|
| Browsers | Chromium, Firefox, WebKit | Strong Chrome-family workflow plus Firefox |
|---|---|---|
| Model | Driving the browser externally, async/await | A command queue inside Cypress's architecture |
| Isolation | A new BrowserContext per test | Resetting browser state between tests |
| Parallelism | Built-in workers and sharding | Locally and via CI/cloud |
| Diagnostics | UI Mode, Inspector, Trace Viewer | A strong interactive Command Log |
| Best fit | Modern multi-browser E2E and complex CI | A team already strong in Cypress |
The table shows an honest conclusion: the tools have different strengths, not an absolute winner. Playwright wins where a modern multi-browser E2E and a complex parallel CI are needed. Cypress remains a strong choice for a team already deep in it that values its interactive workflow and ecosystem. The "best tool" here is the one that matches your context, not the one mentioned more often.
Migration is a separate question. Rewriting a mature, stable Cypress suite into Playwright "because it is newer" almost never pays off: you trade working tests for the risk of regressions and weeks of work for properties you may not use. Migration is justified when there is a concrete pain - you need WebKit, parallelism hits a wall, traces are missing - not an abstract wish to keep up.
For a new project, though, especially on Next.js, Playwright usually gives a more direct model from day one: an official generator, a ready integration, a wide matrix of browsers and devices. The typical choice failure is picking a tool by its popularity in your feed rather than by the project's requirements, and the second is breaking a working suite to switch frameworks with no measurable benefit. A tool is chosen for the context: the browsers you promise, the CI you keep and the team that maintains it.