TestDriver vs Playwright
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.
Entry price
From $20 per seat/month (120 testing minutes included, then $0.14/minute)
Free tierFree and open source
Open sourceWhat drives the bill
The metric that actually scales your invoice.
The seat price is the small half of the bill: $20 per seat covers 120 testing minutes, then metering kicks in at $0.14 a minute (about $8.40 an hour). Seats are billed for every GitHub user who gets a PR review or runs a test, and a vision model driving a desktop is slower per test than a headless browser — model the minutes before committing a large suite.
Free and open source. Microsoft also sells a hosted parallel-runner service; the library itself has no paid tier.
Free tier
Free trial rather than a standing free tier; paid seats include 120 testing minutes a month.
Everything, self-hosted
Open source
Apache-2.0
Self-hostable
No-code authoring
Languages
Platforms
Fits teams
Adoption
Niche
TestDriver
Category standard
Microsoft · since 2020
Strengths
- Tests surfaces nothing else reaches — browser extensions, packaged desktop apps, canvas and third-party OAuth screens.
- No selectors to maintain, so a refactor that renames every class breaks nothing.
- Runs per pull request in a disposable sandbox rather than against a shared staging environment.
- Auto-waiting and web-first assertions remove most of the sleep() flake that plagues older tools.
- The trace viewer — DOM snapshots, network, console and screenshots per step — is the best failure triage in the category.
- True WebKit support, so Safari bugs are caught on Linux CI without a Mac.
Limitations
- A vision model is non-deterministic. Reruns of an unchanged test do not always take the same path, which makes a genuine failure harder to distinguish from a bad frame.
- Billed by testing hours, and driving a real desktop is slow — a suite that costs pennies on Playwright can cost real money here.
- Young product with a small community; expect to be an early reporter of your own bugs.
- No native mobile app support. Mobile means an emulated viewport, not a real device.
- The API surface is large; teams without a conventions document end up with four ways to write the same locator.
- Component testing is still experimental compared to the E2E runner.
Best for
Teams testing extensions, desktop apps or canvas-heavy UIs, where selector-based runners simply cannot see the thing under test.
Teams that write their own tests and want the lowest-flake open-source option available.
All of these integrate with: GitHub Actions.
Pricing last reviewed August 2026 and is indicative only — confirm on each vendor’s own page.