Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

Jasmine

2.6K
1.5K
+ 1
186
Mocha

8.6K
2.9K
+ 1
430
QUnit

588
83
+ 1
17

Jasmine vs Mocha vs QUnit: What are the differences?

Key Differences between Jasmine, Mocha, and QUnit in JavaScript Testing

JavaScript testing frameworks like Jasmine, Mocha, and QUnit greatly simplify the process of writing, organizing, and executing tests for JavaScript code. While all three frameworks serve a similar purpose, there are key differences that set them apart.

  1. Syntax and Assertion Styles:

Jasmine uses a declarative syntax, often referred to as BDD (Behavior-Driven Development), which aims to make tests more readable. It provides its own set of assertion functions like expect, toBe, and toEqual.

Mocha, on the other hand, has a more flexible and versatile syntax, allowing developers to choose from multiple assertion libraries like Chai or should.js. This can be helpful when working with different coding styles or personal preferences.

QUnit follows a more traditional, simple, and minimalistic approach. It features a concise syntax for assertions and test definitions, making it easier to get started with.

  1. Test Runners and Environments:

Jasmine includes its own test runner, providing an all-in-one solution. It comes bundled with a built-in DOM testing environment that mimics a real browser environment, making it suitable for testing web applications.

Mocha, on the other hand, focuses on providing a flexible framework and does not include a built-in test runner. It can be integrated with various test runners like Karma or Jest and can run tests in both browser and Node.js environments.

QUnit, like Mocha, does not have a built-in test runner but is primarily designed to run in the browser environment. It can also be integrated with other build tools or test runners.

  1. Asynchronous Testing:

Jasmine provides built-in support for handling asynchronous operations through a concept called "asynchronous test management." It includes functions like done and async/await, making it easier to write tests that involve asynchronous code.

Mocha, on the other hand, does not have built-in support for handling asynchronous operations. However, it allows developers to use various libraries like async/await, Promises, or callbacks to handle asynchronous code within tests.

QUnit follows a similar approach to Mocha for handling asynchronous code. It does not provide built-in support but can utilize libraries like async/await, Promises, or callbacks for managing asynchronous operations.

  1. Mocking and Spies:

Jasmine provides built-in capabilities for creating mocks and spies. It allows developers to create fake functions or objects and spy on function calls, enabling comprehensive testing and verification of code behavior.

Mocha, by itself, does not provide mocking or spying capabilities. However, it can be combined with libraries like Sinon.js to achieve similar functionality.

QUnit does not include built-in mocking or spying capabilities but can be paired with libraries like Sinon.js for achieving these functionalities.

  1. Plugins and Community Support:

Jasmine has a large community and a rich ecosystem of plugins and extensions. This makes it easier to find solutions to common testing challenges, extend the framework's capabilities, and integrate with other tools seamlessly.

Mocha also has a vast ecosystem with numerous plugins and extensions available. It is particularly popular for its integration with other frameworks and tools, making it a versatile choice.

QUnit, although not as popular as Jasmine or Mocha, still has a dedicated community and some plugins available. However, its plugin ecosystem may not be as extensive as the other two frameworks.

  1. Learning Curve:

Jasmine's declarative syntax and self-contained nature make it relatively easy to get started with. It provides clear and concise error messages, aiding in the debugging process. However, learning all of its features and best practices may require some time.

Mocha's flexible syntax and its capability to integrate with different libraries make it more adaptable but also potentially more complex for newcomers. It may require a deeper understanding of JavaScript testing concepts and libraries.

QUnit's minimalistic approach contributes to its ease of use and a gentle learning curve. It provides straightforward APIs for writing tests and assertions, making it suitable for beginners or developers who prefer a simpler testing framework.

In summary, Jasmine focuses on readability and includes its own test runner and mocking capabilities. Mocha offers a flexible syntax and requires separate libraries for mocking and spies. QUnit is minimalistic, easy to learn, and primarily designed for the browser environment.

Decisions about Jasmine, Mocha, and QUnit
Ben Herbert
Lead Front End Developer at Crunch · | 4 upvotes · 44.8K views

We were able to combine multiple tools with Jest and React Testing Library (e.g. sinon, enzyme, chai). Jest has powerful cli options and increased performance including from parallel testing processes. Migrating was reasonably straight forward as there is a code transformation script to do most of the leg work. Jest's documentation is excellent.

See more

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.

See more
Get Advice from developers at your company using StackShare Enterprise. Sign up for StackShare Enterprise.
Learn More
Pros of Jasmine
Pros of Mocha
Pros of QUnit
  • 64
    Can also be used for tdd
  • 49
    Open source
  • 18
    Originally from RSpec
  • 15
    Great community
  • 14
    No dependencies, not even DOM
  • 10
    Easy to setup
  • 8
    Simple
  • 3
    Created by Pivotal-Labs
  • 2
    Works with KarmaJs
  • 1
    Jasmine is faster than selenium in angular application
  • 1
    SpyOn to fake calls
  • 1
    Async and promises are easy calls with "done"
  • 137
    Open source
  • 102
    Simple
  • 81
    Promise support
  • 48
    Flexible
  • 29
    Easy to add support for Generators
  • 12
    For browser and server testing
  • 7
    Curstom assertion libraries
  • 5
    Works with Karma
  • 3
    No other better tools
  • 1
    Simple setup
  • 1
    Works with saucelabs
  • 1
    Lots of tutorials and help online
  • 1
    Default reporter is nice, clean, and itemized
  • 1
    Works with BrowserStack
  • 1
    Simple integration testing
  • 6
    Simple
  • 4
    Open Source
  • 3
    Promise support
  • 3
    Easy setup
  • 1
    Excellent GUI

Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions

Cons of Jasmine
Cons of Mocha
Cons of QUnit
  • 2
    Unfriendly error logs
  • 3
    Cannot test a promisified functions without assertion
  • 2
    No assertion count in results
  • 1
    Not as many reporter options as Jest
    Be the first to leave a con

    Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions

    What is Jasmine?

    Jasmine is a Behavior Driven Development testing framework for JavaScript. It does not rely on browsers, DOM, or any JavaScript framework. Thus it's suited for websites, Node.js projects, or anywhere that JavaScript can run.

    What is Mocha?

    Mocha is a feature-rich JavaScript test framework running on node.js and the browser, making asynchronous testing simple and fun. Mocha tests run serially, allowing for flexible and accurate reporting, while mapping uncaught exceptions to the correct test cases.

    What is QUnit?

    QUnit is a powerful, easy-to-use JavaScript unit testing framework. It's used by the jQuery, jQuery UI and jQuery Mobile projects and is capable of testing any generic JavaScript code, including itself!

    Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

    What companies use Jasmine?
    What companies use Mocha?
    What companies use QUnit?

    Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions

    What tools integrate with Jasmine?
    What tools integrate with Mocha?
    What tools integrate with QUnit?

    Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions

    Blog Posts

    JavaScriptGitHubNode.js+29
    14
    13469
    JavaScriptGitGitHub+33
    20
    2091
    What are some alternatives to Jasmine, Mocha, and QUnit?
    Jest
    Jest provides you with multiple layers on top of Jasmine.
    Karma
    Karma is not a testing framework, nor an assertion library. Karma just launches a HTTP server, and generates the test runner HTML file you probably already know from your favourite testing framework. So for testing purposes you can use pretty much anything you like.
    JavaScript
    JavaScript is most known as the scripting language for Web pages, but used in many non-browser environments as well such as node.js or Apache CouchDB. It is a prototype-based, multi-paradigm scripting language that is dynamic,and supports object-oriented, imperative, and functional programming styles.
    Git
    Git is a free and open source distributed version control system designed to handle everything from small to very large projects with speed and efficiency.
    GitHub
    GitHub is the best place to share code with friends, co-workers, classmates, and complete strangers. Over three million people use GitHub to build amazing things together.
    See all alternatives