Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Cypress vs Mocha: What are the differences?
What is Cypress? Better, faster, and more reliable testing for anything that runs in a browser. Cypress is a front end automated testing application created for the modern web. Cypress is built on a new architecture and runs in the same run-loop as the application being tested. As a result Cypress provides better, faster, and more reliable testing for anything that runs in a browser. Cypress works on any front-end framework or website.
Some of the features offered by Cypress are:
- Time Travel
- Automatic Waiting
On the other hand, Mocha provides the following key features:
- browser support
- simple async support, including promises
- test coverage reporting
"Open source" is the top reason why over 4 developers like Cypress, while over 130 developers mention "Open source" as the leading cause for choosing Mocha.
Mocha is an open source tool with 18K GitHub stars and 2.43K GitHub forks. Here's a link to Mocha's open source repository on GitHub.
According to the StackShare community, Mocha has a broader approval, being mentioned in 397 company stacks & 268 developers stacks; compared to Cypress, which is listed in 55 company stacks and 43 developer stacks.
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:
More reliable (tends to throw fewer intermittent false failures)
Easier to read code (handles promises gracefully)
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
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
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
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.
We use Mocha for our FDA verification testing. It's integrated into Meteor, our upstream web application framework. We like how battle tested it is, its' syntax, its' options of reporters, and countless other features. Most everybody can agree on mocha, and that gets us half-way through our FDA verification and validation (V&V) testing strategy.
Pros of Cypress
- Open source29
- Great documentation22
- Simple usage20
- Cross Browser testing10
- Easy us with CI9
- Npm install cypress only5
- Não faz café1
- Good for beginner automation engineers1
Pros of Mocha
- Open source137
- Promise support81
- Easy to add support for Generators29
- For browser and server testing12
- Curstom assertion libraries7
- Works with Karma5
- No other better tools3
- Simple setup1
- Works with saucelabs1
- Lots of tutorials and help online1
- Default reporter is nice, clean, and itemized1
- Works with BrowserStack1
- Simple integration testing1
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
- Using a non-standard automation protocol4
- Not freeware4
- No 'WD wire protocol' support3
Cons of Mocha
- Cannot test a promisified functions without assertion3
- No assertion count in results2
- Not as many reporter options as Jest1
Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions
What is Cypress?
What is Mocha?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
What tools integrate with Cypress?
What tools integrate with Mocha?
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions