Puppeteer vs Autify

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.

PuppeteerAutify

Entry price

Free and open source

Open source

Quote on request

Quote only

What drives the bill

The metric that actually scales your invoice.

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

Quote-based annual contracts sized by test runs.

Free tier

Everything, self-hosted

Two-week free trial.

Open source

Apache-2.0

Self-hostable

No-code authoring

Languages

JavaScriptTypeScript

CodelessJavaScript

Platforms

Web

WebiOSAndroid

Fits teams

Solo / side projectStartup

Scale-up / mid-marketEnterprise

Adoption

Widely used

Google · since 2017

Emerging

Autify, Inc. · since 2016

Strengths

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.

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.

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

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

Small QA teams that need automation without an engineering hire.

All of these integrate with: GitHub Actions.

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