Playwright vs ForgeKit
Last verified: Feb 1, 2026
TL;DR: Playwright excels for E2E testing across browsers. ForgeKit is better when production workloads need reliable screenshot/PDF APIs without test-framework overhead.
Compare output with ForgeKit
Feature comparison
| Feature | ForgeKit | Playwright |
|---|---|---|
| Managed infrastructure | true | false |
| Avg response time | 1800ms | 2800ms |
| JavaScript rendering | true | true |
| PDF generation | true | true |
| MCP / agent support | true | false |
| Free tier | true | true |
| Rate limit (req/min) | 60 | 60 |
| SDK languages | REST, MCP, OpenAPI | Node, Python, Java, .NET |
Playwright strengths
- Multi-browser support
- Strong testing ecosystem
- Auto-waiting primitives
- Cross-platform
Playwright weaknesses
- Same infra burden as Puppeteer
- Overkill for simple screenshots
- No native REST API
When to choose each
Choose Playwright if: multi-browser support.
Choose ForgeKit if: you want managed utility APIs with MCP support.
Pricing at scale
| Volume | ForgeKit | Playwright |
|---|---|---|
| 1,000 requests/mo | $19 (Starter) | Self-hosted |
| 10,000 requests/mo | $49 (Build) | Managed (Browserless) |
| 100,000 requests/mo | $99 (Scale) | Enterprise |
Migration guide
// Playwright approach
const result = await captureWithPlaywright({
url: "https://example.com",
format: "png",
});// ForgeKit — one REST call
const res = await fetch("https://useforgekit.dev/api/v1/screenshot", {
method: "POST",
headers: {
"Authorization": "Bearer fk_live_...",
"Content-Type": "application/json",
},
body: JSON.stringify({ url: "https://example.com", width: 1280 }),
});
const { jobId } = await res.json();FAQ
Playwright vs ForgeKit for production screenshots?
Use Playwright in CI for tests. Use ForgeKit in production for user-facing captures, webhooks, and agent workflows.
Sign up free — 250 credits included.