StackShareStackShare
Follow on
StackShare

Discover and share technology stacks from companies around the world.

Follow on

© 2025 StackShare. All rights reserved.

Product

  • Stacks
  • Tools
  • Feed

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  1. Stackups
  2. DevOps
  3. Testing Frameworks
  4. Javascript Testing Framework
  5. Jest vs QUnit

Jest vs QUnit

OverviewDecisionsComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Jest
Jest
Stacks15.2K
Followers4.1K
Votes175
QUnit
QUnit
Stacks914
Followers82
Votes17

Jest vs QUnit: What are the differences?

Introduction

In this article, we will be discussing the key differences between Jest and QUnit. Both Jest and QUnit are popular JavaScript testing frameworks used by developers to write unit tests for their code. While they share some similarities, there are noticeable differences that set them apart from each other.

  1. Framework Design and Usage:

Jest is a testing framework developed by Facebook and is commonly used in conjunction with React applications. It provides a comprehensive set of tools and features that enable developers to write tests, mock functions, and perform snapshot testing. On the other hand, QUnit is a lightweight testing framework designed for simplicity and ease of use. It is typically used for testing non-interactive JavaScript, making it a popular choice for testing libraries and frameworks.

  1. Syntax and API:

Jest uses a more modern and expressive syntax compared to QUnit. It provides a rich set of matchers and makes use of global functions such as describe and it to structure test cases. Jest also has built-in support for asynchronous testing using promises or async/await syntax. QUnit, on the other hand, follows a more traditional syntax with assertions performed using the assert object. It does not have native support for asynchronous testing but provides ways to handle asynchronous code using callbacks or modules like QUnit.asyncTest.

  1. Mocking and Stubs:

Jest comes with powerful mocking capabilities out of the box. It provides functions like jest.mock and jest.spyOn that make it easy to create and manage mocks and stubs. Jest also has built-in support for creating mock modules and functions. QUnit, on the other hand, does not have built-in mocking capabilities. Developers using QUnit usually rely on third-party libraries like Sinon.js for mocking and stubbing.

  1. Test Coverage:

Jest includes a built-in code coverage feature that allows developers to measure the quality of their tests by determining how much of their code is covered. It generates detailed reports on code coverage and highlights areas that need more testing. QUnit, on the other hand, does not have built-in code coverage support. Developers using QUnit often rely on external tools and plugins for code coverage analysis.

  1. Integration with Ecosystem:

Jest has excellent integration with other tools commonly used in the JavaScript ecosystem. It works seamlessly with libraries like React and has built-in support for popular features like snapshot testing and code coverage. QUnit, on the other hand, is agnostic to the surrounding ecosystem and can be used with any JavaScript framework or library.

  1. Community and Documentation:

Jest has gained a significant traction in the JavaScript community and has a larger user base compared to QUnit. It benefits from extensive documentation, a large number of tutorials, and a vibrant community. QUnit, although less popular, still has a dedicated user base and provides comprehensive documentation and resources for users.

In Summary, Jest and QUnit differ in their framework design and usage, syntax and API, mocking and stubbing capabilities, support for test coverage, integration with other tools and libraries, and the size and activity of their respective communities. These differences should be taken into consideration when choosing a testing framework for a JavaScript project.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs
CLI (Node.js)
or
Manual

Advice on Jest, QUnit

Dane
Dane

Feb 7, 2020

Needs adviceonCypressCypressJestJest

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.

836k views836k
Comments
Ben
Ben

Lead Front End Developer at Crunch

Jan 28, 2022

Decided

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.

47.8k views47.8k
Comments
Anonymous
Anonymous

Feb 6, 2020

Needs advice

Postman will be used to do integration testing with the backend API we create. It offers a clean interface to create many requests, and you can even organize these requests into collections. It helps to test the backend API first to make sure it's working before using it in the front-end. Jest can also be used for testing and is already embedded into React. Not only does it offer unit testing support in javascript, it can also do snapshot testing for the front-end to make sure components are rendering correctly. Enzyme is complementary to Jest and offers more functions such as shallow rendering. UnitTest will be used for Python testing as it is simple, has a lot of functionality and already built in with python. Sentry will be used for keeping track of errors as it is also easily integratable with Heroku because they offer it as an add-on. LogDNA will be used for tracking logs which are not errors and is also a Heroku add-on. Its good to have a separate service to record logs, monitor, track and even fix errors in real-time so our application can run more smoothly.

290k views290k
Comments

Detailed Comparison

Jest
Jest
QUnit
QUnit

Jest provides you with multiple layers on top of Jasmine.

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!

Familiar Approach: Built on top of the Jasmine test framework, using familiar expect(value).toBe(other) assertions;Mock by Default: Automatically mocks CommonJS modules returned by require(), making most existing code testable;Short Feedback Loop: DOM APIs are mocked and tests run in parallel via a small node.js command line utility
-
Statistics
Stacks
15.2K
Stacks
914
Followers
4.1K
Followers
82
Votes
175
Votes
17
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 36
    Open source
  • 32
    Mock by default makes testing much simpler
  • 23
    Testing React Native Apps
  • 20
    Parallel test running
  • 16
    Fast
Cons
  • 4
    Ambiguous configuration
  • 4
    Documentation
  • 3
    Difficult
  • 2
    Difficult to run single test/describe/file
  • 2
    Bugged
Pros
  • 6
    Simple
  • 4
    Open Source
  • 3
    Easy setup
  • 3
    Promise support
  • 1
    Excellent GUI

What are some alternatives to Jest, QUnit?

Mocha

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.

Jasmine

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.

Cypress

Cypress

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.

CodeceptJS

CodeceptJS

It is a modern end to end testing framework with a special BDD-style syntax. The test is written as a linear scenario of user's action on a site. Each test is described inside a Scenario function with I object passed into it.

Protractor

Protractor

Protractor is an end-to-end test framework for Angular and AngularJS applications. Protractor runs tests against your application running in a real browser, interacting with it as a user would.

AVA

AVA

Even though JavaScript is single-threaded, IO in Node.js can happen in parallel due to its async nature. AVA takes advantage of this and runs your tests concurrently, which is especially beneficial for IO heavy tests. In addition, test files are run in parallel as separate processes, giving you even better performance and an isolated environment for each test file.

Ghost Inspector

Ghost Inspector

It lets you create and manage UI tests that check specific functionality in your website or application. We execute these automated browser tests continuously from the cloud and alert you if anything breaks.

Sorry-cypress

Sorry-cypress

Open-source, self-hosted alternative Cypress Dashboard.

Baretest

Baretest

It is a fast and simple JavaScript test runner. It offers near-instant performance and a brainless API. It makes testing tolerable.

SinonJS

SinonJS

It is a really helpful library when you want to unit test your code. It supports spies, stubs, and mocks. The library has cross browser support and also can run on the server using Node.js.

Related Comparisons

GitHub
Bitbucket

Bitbucket vs GitHub vs GitLab

GitHub
Bitbucket

AWS CodeCommit vs Bitbucket vs GitHub

Kubernetes
Rancher

Docker Swarm vs Kubernetes vs Rancher

gulp
Grunt

Grunt vs Webpack vs gulp

Graphite
Kibana

Grafana vs Graphite vs Kibana