Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Cypress vs mabl: What are the differences?
Introduction
In this article, we will discuss the key differences between Cypress and mabl, two popular automation testing frameworks. These frameworks are widely used in the software industry to automate testing processes and ensure the quality of web applications. Understanding the differences between Cypress and mabl can help teams make informed decisions about which framework to choose for their testing needs.
Execution Environment: One key difference between Cypress and mabl is their execution environment. Cypress runs directly in the browser and executes tests within the same context as the application being tested. On the other hand, mabl uses a cloud-based execution environment, where tests are executed on remote servers. This difference in execution environment can impact factors such as test stability and access to browser-specific features.
Test Design Approach: Cypress and mabl also differ in their test design approaches. Cypress follows a traditional imperative approach, where tests are defined using JavaScript code. Test scripts in Cypress contain explicit instructions for interacting with elements and performing actions. On the other hand, mabl follows a more declarative approach, where tests are defined in a visual interface using a combination of user interactions and machine learning algorithms. This declarative approach in mabl can make test creation and maintenance easier for users with limited programming skills.
Test Execution Speed: Another significant difference between Cypress and mabl is their test execution speed. Cypress is known for its fast and efficient test execution. It achieves this by running tests directly in the browser and leveraging its own architecture to provide speedy feedback. On the other hand, mabl's cloud-based execution may introduce additional latency, resulting in slower test execution times. This difference in test execution speed can be crucial for teams working on time-sensitive projects.
Integrations and Ecosystem: Cypress and mabl also vary in terms of their integrations and ecosystem support. Cypress has a rich ecosystem and extensive community support, with a wide range of plugins and extensions available. It seamlessly integrates with popular CI/CD tools, version control systems, and other third-party tools. On the other hand, mabl has a smaller ecosystem and limited integrations compared to Cypress. This difference in ecosystem support might be a factor to consider depending on the specific requirements of the testing project.
Pricing Model: Cypress and mabl use different pricing models for their services. Cypress is an open-source tool and provides its core functionality for free. However, there are additional paid services and enterprise offerings available from the Cypress team. In contrast, mabl follows a subscription-based pricing model, where users pay for the number of tests executed and features utilized. This difference in pricing models can impact the cost considerations for teams and organizations.
Reporting and Analytics: Finally, Cypress and mabl offer different capabilities when it comes to reporting and analytics. Cypress provides detailed and customizable test reports that include screenshots and video recordings. It also allows users to generate performance metrics and track test execution results. Mabl, on the other hand, focuses heavily on AI-driven insights and provides comprehensive analytics, including visual regression analysis and anomaly detection. This difference in reporting and analytics features can influence the decision-making process for teams seeking specific reporting requirements.
In summary, Cypress and mabl differ in their execution environment, test design approach, test execution speed, integrations, pricing model, and reporting/analytics features. Understanding these differences can help teams make informed decisions about choosing the right automation testing framework for their specific needs.
In the company I will be building test automation framework and my new company develops apps mainly using AngularJS/TypeScript. I was planning to build Protractor-Jasmine framework but a friend of mine told me about Cypress and heard that its users are very satisfied with it. I am trying to understand the capabilities of Cypress and as the final goal to differentiate these two tools. Can anyone advice me on this in a nutshell pls...
I've used both Protractor and Cypress extensively. Cypress is the easier and more reliable tool, whereas Protractor is the more powerful tool. Your choice of tool should depend on your specific testing needs. Here are some advantages and disadvantages of each tool:
Cypress advantages:
Faster
More reliable (tends to throw fewer intermittent false failures)
Easier to read code (handles promises gracefully)
Cypress disadvantages:
Cannot switch between browser tabs
Cannot switch to iFrames
Cannot specify clicks or keypresses explicitly as if a real user was interacting
Cannot move the mouse to specific co-ordinates
Sometimes has trouble switching between different top-level domains, so not good for testing external links
Cypress is a newer tool with less extensive documentation and less community support
Protractor advantages:
More powerful because it is Selenium-based - it can switch between tabs, it can handle external links to other domains, it can handle iFrames, simulate keypresses and clicks, and move the mouse to specific co-ordinates within the browser.
More extensive community support and documentation
Protractor disadvantages:
Slower and more brittle - in general there is a higher likelihood of cryptic and/or intermittent errors which may cause your tests to fail even though there is nothing wrong with your application
For highly experienced automation engineers, the fundamental "brittle" nature of Selenium can be worked around - it can be reliable but only if you really know what you are doing
Less graceful handling of promises - relies on async/await or .then to manage the order of execution. Therefore it is a bit harder to read the code.
Harder to set up, and the method of setup impacts its reliability. For example, a hub/node configuration where the selenium jar is on a different physical machine than the browser under test will cause unreliability in your tests. Not everyone knows about this type of thing, so it's common to find Selenium frameworks that are set up poorly.
It's probably better to use Cypress if
you're at a smaller company and have a close relationship with developers who can help write hooks or stubs in their code to assist your testing
you don't need to do things like switch between tabs or test links to external top-level domains
It's probably better to use Protractor if
You might need to switch between tabs or test external links to other domains within the scope of your framework
You want to use a more accurate simulation of how a real user interacts with a browser (i.e. click at this location, type these keys)
You're at a company where you won't have any support from developers in writing hooks or stubs to make their code more testable in a less powerful framework like Cypress
Please try Handow, the e2e tool basing on Puppeteer.
Gherkin syntax compatible
Chrome/Chromium orentied, driven by Puppeteer engine
Complete JavaScript programming
Create test suites rapidly without coding (or a little bit), basing on built-in steps library
Schedule test with plans and arrange stories with sequential stages
Fast running, execute story groups in parallel by multi-workers
Built-in single page report render
Cover page view, REST API and cookies test
As we all know testing is an important part of any application. To assist with our testing we are going to use both Cypress and Jest. We feel these tools complement each other and will help us get good coverage of our code. We will use Cypress for our end to end testing as we've found it quite user friendly. Jest will be used for our unit tests because we've seen how many larger companies use it with great success.
Pros of Cypress
- Open source29
- Great documentation22
- Simple usage20
- Fast18
- Cross Browser testing10
- Easy us with CI9
- Npm install cypress only5
- Good for beginner automation engineers2
Pros of mabl
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Cypress
- Cypress is weak at cross-browser testing21
- Switch tabs : Cypress can'nt support14
- No iFrame support12
- No page object support9
- No multiple domain support9
- No file upload support8
- No support for multiple tab control8
- No xPath support8
- No support for Safari7
- Cypress doesn't support native app7
- Re-run failed tests retries not supported yet7
- No support for multiple browser control7
- $20/user/thread for reports5
- Adobe4
- Using a non-standard automation protocol4
- Not freeware4
- No 'WD wire protocol' support3