Pros of Puppeteer

• More comprehensive API with direct control over browser automation
• Supports a wider range of browser interactions and scenarios
• Actively maintained by Google, ensuring regular updates and improvements

Cons of Puppeteer

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• Requires more setup and configuration for basic tasks
• Larger package size and potentially higher resource usage

Code Comparison

Browsershot:

use Spatie\Browsershot\Browsershot;

Browsershot::url('https://example.com')
    ->save('example.png');

Puppeteer:

const puppeteer = require('puppeteer');

(async () => {
  const browser = await puppeteer.launch();
  const page = await browser.newPage();
  await page.goto('https://example.com');
  await page.screenshot({ path: 'example.png' });
  await browser.close();
})();

Summary

Browsershot is a PHP wrapper around Puppeteer, offering a simpler API for common tasks like taking screenshots or generating PDFs. It's easier to use for basic operations but has limited flexibility compared to Puppeteer. Puppeteer provides more control and features but requires more code and setup. Choose Browsershot for quick, simple tasks in PHP projects, and Puppeteer for complex browser automation or when working in a Node.js environment.

Pros of pageres

• Lightweight and focused on capturing screenshots
• Supports multiple URLs and viewport sizes in a single command
• Includes CLI tool for easy use outside of Node.js projects

Cons of pageres

• Limited to capturing screenshots only
• Lacks advanced browser automation features
• May require additional setup for certain use cases

Code Comparison

pageres:

const Pageres = require('pageres');

(async () => {
    await new Pageres({delay: 2})
        .src('https://example.com', ['1280x1024', '1920x1080'])
        .dest(__dirname)
        .run();
})();

Browsershot:

use Spatie\Browsershot\Browsershot;

Browsershot::url('https://example.com')
    ->windowSize(1280, 1024)
    ->screenshot('example.png');

Both libraries offer straightforward APIs for capturing screenshots, but Browsershot provides more extensive browser control and manipulation options. pageres excels in simplicity and multi-URL/viewport capture, while Browsershot offers a wider range of features for web page interaction and PDF generation. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project and the programming language you prefer to work with.

Pros of PhantomJS

• Standalone headless browser, not dependent on external browsers
• Lightweight and faster for simple tasks
• Extensive API for advanced scripting and automation

Cons of PhantomJS

• No longer actively maintained (last release in 2018)
• Limited support for modern web standards and JavaScript features
• Lacks some features available in newer headless browser solutions

Code Comparison

PhantomJS:

var page = require('webpage').create();
page.open('http://example.com', function(status) {
  var title = page.evaluate(function() {
    return document.title;
  });
  console.log('Page title:', title);
  phantom.exit();
});

Browsershot:

use Spatie\Browsershot\Browsershot;

$title = Browsershot::url('http://example.com')
    ->evaluate("document.title")
    ->getScreenshot();

Key Differences

• PhantomJS is a standalone JavaScript-based solution, while Browsershot is a PHP wrapper for Puppeteer
• Browsershot leverages Chrome/Chromium, providing better compatibility with modern web technologies
• PhantomJS offers more direct control over the browser, while Browsershot simplifies common tasks
• Browsershot is actively maintained and benefits from ongoing Chrome/Chromium updates

Pros of Cypress

• Comprehensive end-to-end testing framework with a rich set of commands and utilities
• Interactive test runner with time-travel debugging and real-time reloads
• Extensive documentation and active community support

Cons of Cypress

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• Limited to testing web applications within a browser environment
• Can be slower for simple screenshot or PDF generation tasks

Code Comparison

Browsershot (PHP):

use Spatie\Browsershot\Browsershot;

Browsershot::url('https://example.com')
    ->save('example.png');

Cypress (JavaScript):

describe('Screenshot Test', () => {
  it('captures a screenshot', () => {
    cy.visit('https://example.com');
    cy.screenshot('example');
  });
});

Summary

Browsershot is a PHP library focused on generating screenshots and PDFs from web pages, while Cypress is a comprehensive JavaScript-based end-to-end testing framework. Browsershot excels in simplicity for capturing web content, whereas Cypress offers a more robust solution for full web application testing with additional features like time-travel debugging and real-time reloads. The choice between the two depends on the specific project requirements and the desired level of testing complexity.

Pros of Playwright

• Cross-browser support (Chromium, Firefox, WebKit) out of the box
• More comprehensive API for advanced web automation and testing
• Built-in test runner and assertion library

Cons of Playwright

• Steeper learning curve due to more extensive features
• Larger package size and potentially higher resource usage
• May be overkill for simple screenshot or PDF generation tasks

Code Comparison

Browsershot (PHP):

use Spatie\Browsershot\Browsershot;

Browsershot::url('https://example.com')
    ->save('example.png');

Playwright (JavaScript):

const { chromium } = require('playwright');

(async () => {
  const browser = await chromium.launch();
  const page = await browser.newPage();
  await page.goto('https://example.com');
  await page.screenshot({ path: 'example.png' });
  await browser.close();
})();

Summary

Playwright offers more comprehensive web automation capabilities across multiple browsers, making it suitable for complex testing scenarios. However, it may be more complex to set up and use for simple tasks. Browsershot, being more focused on screenshot and PDF generation, provides a simpler API for these specific use cases but lacks the extensive features of Playwright.