Or press ESC to close.

POM vs. PAM: Achieving Efficient Test Automation with the Right Pattern

Mar 21st 2024 11 min read

As automation testing evolves, two prominent patterns have emerged: the Page Object Model (POM) and the Page Action Model (PAM). Both offer distinct approaches to organizing and executing tests, each with its advantages.

This exploration dives into POM and PAM, dissecting their roles and functionalities to help us achieve efficient test automation. Choosing the right pattern is crucial for navigating modern software development and ensuring smooth integration of automated testing. Let's unravel the intricacies of POM and PAM to pave the way for optimal automation solutions.

Understanding POM

POM represents a paradigm shift in the realm of test automation, offering a structured approach to managing interactions with web pages. At its core, POM abstracts web page elements and their corresponding actions into reusable components, fostering modularization and maintainability within automation test scripts.

In POM, each web page within an application is encapsulated within a dedicated Page Object. These Page Objects serve as repositories for page-specific elements and methods, effectively isolating the implementation details of each page from the test scripts themselves. This separation of concerns promotes cleaner, more maintainable codebases by minimizing duplication and facilitating easier updates.

POM provides a clear structure for organizing test automation code. By encapsulating page elements and actions within dedicated Page Objects, the codebase becomes more modular and easier to manage. Test scripts interact with the application solely through the methods exposed by these Page Objects, shielding the test logic from the intricacies of the underlying HTML structure.

Implementing automation tests using POM offers several advantages:

Let's consider a simplified example of implementing POM using Selenium WebDriver in Python:

from selenium.webdriver.common.by import By

class LoginPage:
    def __init__(self, driver):
        self.driver = driver
        self.username_field = (By.ID, 'username')
        self.password_field = (By.ID, 'password')
        self.login_button = (By.ID, 'login-button')
    def enter_credentials(self, username, password):
    def click_login_button(self):

In this example, the LoginPage class encapsulates the elements and actions specific to the login page of the application. The enter_credentials method allows entering the username and password, while the click_login_button method clicks the login button. This Page Object can then be utilized in various test scripts to interact with the login page efficiently.

Understanding PAM

PAM presents an alternative approach to organizing test automation code, emphasizing action-centric abstraction over page-centric encapsulation. Unlike POM, which focuses on representing individual web pages as objects, PAM shifts the focus towards encapsulating common interactions and actions across multiple pages into reusable components.

PAM advocates for encapsulating common actions and interactions within dedicated Action classes rather than Page Objects. These Action classes serve as repositories for reusable methods that perform specific actions across different pages of the application. By abstracting interactions at the action level, PAM promotes code reuse, modularity, and maintainability in automation test scripts.

In PAM, interactions with web pages are abstracted into reusable action methods that are agnostic to specific page implementations. Instead of tying actions directly to page elements, PAM encourages defining actions in a more generic manner, allowing them to be applied across various contexts within the application. This abstraction reduces code duplication and promotes consistency in test script development.

Implementing automation tests using PAM offers several benefits:

Let's consider an example of implementing PAM using Selenium WebDriver in Python:

from selenium.webdriver.support.wait import WebDriverWait
from selenium.webdriver.support import expected_conditions as EC
class CommonActions:
    def __init__(self, driver):
        self.driver = driver
    def navigate_to_url(self, url):
    def click_element(self, locator):
        element = WebDriverWait(self.driver, 10).until(

In this example, the CommonActions class encapsulates common actions that can be performed across multiple pages of the application. The navigate_to_url method navigates to a specified URL, while the click_element method clicks on a specified web element identified by a locator. These action methods can be reused across different test scripts, promoting code efficiency and maintainability.

Comparing POM and PAM

In the landscape of test automation, both POM and PAM aim to address common challenges and achieve similar goals. However, they diverge in their architectural approach and code organization, leading to distinct advantages and disadvantages. Let's delve into a comparative analysis of POM and PAM to better understand their nuances and implications for automation testing projects.

Both POM and PAM share common objectives in automation testing:

Despite their shared goals, POM and PAM differ significantly in their architectural approach and code organization:

Model Advantages Disadvantages
POM Clear organization of page-specific elements and actions

Enhanced modularity and maintainability
Potential for code duplication, especially in complex applications

Higher upfront investment in Page Object creation
PAM Reduced code duplication

Action-centric abstraction promotes flexibility and scalability
Less granularity in encapsulating page-specific interactions

Dependency on context-aware action methods

Comparison of Advantages and Disadvantages

When deciding between POM and PAM for an automation testing project, several considerations come into play:

By carefully weighing these factors, we can make an informed decision on whether to adopt POM, PAM, or a hybrid approach that combines elements of both models to meet our automation testing needs effectively.

Use Cases and Best Practices

In real-world automation testing scenarios, choosing between POM and PAM depends on various factors, including project requirements, team dynamics, and application complexity. Let's explore some common use cases where each model might be more suitable and discuss best practices for implementing and maintaining them effectively.

Use Cases for POM and PAM

Best Practices for Implementation

Tips for Maintenance and Scalability

By adhering to these best practices and tips, QA teams can effectively implement, maintain, and scale automation testing projects using either POM or PAM. Choosing the right model and adopting best practices tailored to your project's needs are essential steps toward achieving efficient and sustainable automation testing processes.


In conclusion, POM and PAM offer distinct approaches to automation testing, each with its own set of advantages and considerations. While POM emphasizes encapsulating page elements and actions, PAM focuses on abstracting interactions into reusable action methods.

We encourage readers to explore both models and experiment with their implementation in automation testing projects. By understanding the strengths and use cases of POM and PAM, testers can make informed decisions based on project requirements and team dynamics.

Ultimately, whether you choose POM, PAM, or a combination of both, prioritize clarity, maintainability, and scalability in your automation testing efforts. By leveraging the best practices and principles of each model, QA teams can enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of their automation testing processes, contributing to the overall success of software development initiatives.