Power Automate Desktop: WebDriver Launch

Key insights

• Power Automate Desktop now supports WebDriver for browser automation in Preview, letting flows launch Chrome, Edge, and Firefox via their native automation protocols.
  This change aims to improve reliability and make web actions more predictable.
• Edge WebDriver setup: download the driver that matches your browser version, place it where PAD can access it, and enable WebDriver mode in PAD settings.
  Follow the PAD prompts to connect the driver before running Web-based flows.
• Browser Extension vs WebDriver: extensions let you capture UI elements while building flows, but WebDriver uses the browser’s native W3C protocol to execute actions more reliably.
  WebDriver reduces crashes and inconsistent clicks that can occur with older DOM-based methods.
• Recommended workflow: record and capture UI elements with the Browser Extension, then switch to WebDriver for execution to combine easy flow building with stable runtime behavior.
  This two-step approach avoids the current limitation that prevents element capture in WebDriver mode.
• UI element capturing is limited in WebDriver mode, so expect to adjust selectors and test flows after switching execution modes.
  Plan extra testing when pages change or when automating complex login flows and dynamic content.
• Compatibility and performance: WebDriver delivers better cross-browser compatibility and more accurate interactions, following the W3C standard.
  Expect smoother automation, fewer breakages after browser updates, and generally improved execution stability.

Video at a Glance

The YouTube video from Automate with Deenu introduces a new Preview feature in Power Automate Desktop: native WebDriver support for browser automation. In clear, step-by-step footage, the presenter shows how to enable this mode, download the Microsoft Edge WebDriver, and run a live demo that automates a sample banking login page. Furthermore, the video compares the new WebDriver approach to the existing Browser Extension method and highlights important caveats for everyday users. As a result, viewers get both practical setup guidance and a real-world look at how flows behave under the new option.

The presenter emphasizes that the feature is currently in Preview and stresses a practical development tip: build flows with the Browser Extension first, then switch to WebDriver for execution. This note comes from a limitation in the Preview where UI element capture does not work when creating flows under WebDriver. Therefore, the recommended pattern reduces friction during development while taking advantage of WebDriver’s execution stability. The video also invites feedback and engagement to refine the feature before general release.

How WebDriver Works in Power Automate Desktop

In the video, Deenu explains that WebDriver uses the browser’s native automation protocol to send commands like "click", "navigate", or "extract text" directly to the browser. This approach follows the W3C WebDriver standard that major browsers implement, which makes interactions more predictable and less dependent on DOM hacks. Consequently, flows executed via WebDriver tell the browser exactly what to do instead of relying on indirect UI selectors. This direct control often reduces breakage after browser updates and leads to more consistent behavior across Chrome, Edge, and Firefox.

To set up the feature, the tutorial walks through downloading the appropriate browser WebDriver and configuring PAD to use it. The presenter shows how to toggle between the traditional Browser Extension mode and the new WebDriver execution mode within a desktop flow. Importantly, the video demonstrates the limitation that element capture during flow-building is unavailable with WebDriver, which is why the build-then-switch pattern matters. Overall, the segment clarifies how configuration and runtime differ under the new model.

Advantages and Tradeoffs

One clear advantage shown is improved compatibility: because WebDriver is a browser-native interface, it tends to work across multiple browsers more reliably. As a result, teams that need cross-browser automation will likely see fewer failures tied to browser updates. Moreover, the video notes better stability and accuracy when interacting with complex page elements, which translates into fewer manual repairs and lower maintenance overhead over time.

However, Deenu also points out tradeoffs. For example, while WebDriver improves runtime reliability, it complicates development because you lose live element capture during flow design. Therefore, teams must balance faster, more stable execution against a slightly more cumbersome build process. In practice, this tradeoff means additional steps in the development pipeline but potentially less time fixing flaky automations later.

Performance comparisons in the video indicate that WebDriver can be faster and less error-prone in many tasks, but results vary depending on page complexity and browser. Thus, the choice between modes depends on priorities: ease of building versus runtime resilience. Consequently, automation owners should test both methods on representative pages to measure real-world impact before standardizing one approach.

Development Workflow and Best Practices

Deenu recommends a pragmatic workflow: develop and test flows with the Browser Extension to capture UI elements, then switch to WebDriver for production runs. This hybrid approach leverages the strengths of both methods and minimizes the downsides of the Preview state. Additionally, the video suggests keeping WebDriver binaries in a predictable location and documenting versions to avoid mismatches when browsers update. Such version control helps reduce breakage and simplifies troubleshooting when automations fail unexpectedly.

Furthermore, the presenter highlights the importance of logging and monitoring flows after switching to WebDriver, because some element interactions behave differently at runtime. By contrast, rollouts without monitoring can hide failures until a business process breaks. Therefore, teams should implement a short validation phase after converting flows and maintain a rollback plan to the previous method if needed.

Challenges and Recommendations

The video does not shy away from challenges: UI element capture limitations, WebDriver version alignment, and occasional differences in click behavior can complicate adoption. These issues create an initial friction point for teams used to a seamless record-and-play experience with the Browser Extension. Consequently, organizations should weigh the cost of updating workflows and retraining staff against the expected benefits of improved runtime stability and cross-browser support.

To mitigate these challenges, Deenu recommends testing critical flows under both modes, keeping a clear inventory of browser and WebDriver versions, and automating regression checks where possible. In addition, documenting the build-and-switch process reduces uncertainty for new developers. Finally, maintaining frequent communication between developers and operations helps catch subtle behavior changes early, which lowers long-term maintenance costs.

Conclusion

Overall, the Automate with Deenu video offers a practical and balanced look at the new WebDriver support in Power Automate Desktop, showing both its promise and its present limitations. While the Preview stage requires a hybrid workflow to capture UI elements, the benefits in stability and cross-browser compatibility are compelling for production automation. Therefore, teams should pilot WebDriver on representative flows, monitor results closely, and adopt it more broadly only after validating its value against the development tradeoffs. In the meantime, this update represents a meaningful step toward more robust browser automation within Microsoft’s RPA ecosystem.

Keywords

Power Automate Desktop, WebDriver support, browser automation, Power Automate WebDriver, RPA browser automation, Microsoft Power Automate, Edge WebDriver automation, Chrome WebDriver automation