Autify vs Puppeteer

Feature checklists rarely decide anything. What decides it is the pricing metric, who has to write the tests, and which limitation you can live with.

AutifyPuppeteer

Entry price

Quote on request

Quote only

Free and open source

Open source

What drives the bill

The metric that actually scales your invoice.

Quote-based annual contracts sized by test runs.

Free and open source. You pay in engineering time and CI minutes.

Free tier

Two-week free trial.

Everything, self-hosted

Open source

Apache-2.0

Self-hostable

No-code authoring

Languages

CodelessJavaScript

JavaScriptTypeScript

Platforms

WebiOSAndroid

Web

Fits teams

Scale-up / mid-marketEnterprise

Solo / side projectStartup

Adoption

Emerging

Autify, Inc. · since 2016

Widely used

Google · since 2017

Strengths

Very low barrier to a first working suite — recording plus a managed browser cloud.
Maintenance burden is genuinely reduced by the self-healing model.
Covers web and native mobile from one vendor.

Small, fast, and very well documented for Chrome-specific work.
First-class access to the Chrome DevTools protocol for performance tracing and coverage.
Excellent at non-test jobs: PDF rendering, screenshots, scraping.

Limitations

No test runner, assertions, retries or reporting — you assemble all of it.
Chrome and Firefox only; no WebKit.
For E2E testing specifically, Playwright is a strict superset. Choose Puppeteer only when you want a minimal automation library.

Best for

Small QA teams that need automation without an engineering hire.

Automation jobs that are not tests, or Chrome-only tooling where you want minimal dependencies.

All of these integrate with: GitHub Actions.

Pricing last reviewed August 2026 and is indicative only — confirm on each vendor’s own page.