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 TestCafe

Jest vs TestCafe

OverviewDecisionsComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Jest
Jest
Stacks15.2K
Followers4.1K
Votes175
TestCafe
TestCafe
Stacks262
Followers273
Votes26
GitHub Stars9.9K
Forks678

Jest vs TestCafe: What are the differences?

  1. **1. **Key Difference: Framework vs Library: Jest is a testing framework while TestCafe is a testing library. This means that Jest provides a complete set of tools and utilities, including assertion libraries, testing APIs, and mocking capabilities, while TestCafe offers a more minimalistic approach, providing only the essentials for browser-based testing.

  2. **2. **Key Difference: Testing Environment: Another important difference between Jest and TestCafe is the testing environment they use. Jest runs in a Node.js environment, allowing you to execute tests in a Node.js runtime without the need for an actual browser. On the other hand, TestCafe runs tests directly in real browsers, providing a more realistic testing environment.

  3. **3. **Key Difference: Writing Tests: When it comes to writing tests, Jest uses the familiar syntax of popular testing frameworks like Jasmine and Mocha, making it easier for developers to get started. TestCafe, on the other hand, uses a more unique approach, providing its own syntax and API for writing tests, which may require some additional learning.

  4. **4. **Key Difference: Synchronous vs Asynchronous Testing: Jest primarily focuses on synchronous testing, making it suitable for testing small to medium-sized applications. In contrast, TestCafe specializes in asynchronous testing, allowing you to handle complex scenarios involving multiple asynchronous operations, making it more suitable for larger and more complex applications.

  5. **5. **Key Difference: Test Execution: Jest executes tests in parallel by running multiple processes simultaneously, which can significantly speed up the testing process, especially when dealing with a large number of tests. TestCafe, on the other hand, executes tests sequentially by default, ensuring that tests run in the order they are defined, which can be beneficial for certain types of tests.

  6. **6. **Key Difference: Debugging Capabilities: When it comes to debugging tests, Jest provides an extensive set of debugging tools and utilities, including options to run tests in debug mode and integration with popular debugging tools like Chrome DevTools. TestCafe, on the other hand, only provides basic debugging capabilities, primarily through logging and error reporting.

In Summary, Jest is a testing framework that runs in a Node.js environment and provides a complete set of testing tools, while TestCafe is a testing library that runs tests directly in real browsers and offers a more minimalistic approach.

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, TestCafe

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
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
TestCafe
TestCafe

Jest provides you with multiple layers on top of Jasmine.

It is a pure node.js end-to-end solution for testing web apps. It takes care of all the stages: starting browsers, running tests, gathering test results and generating reports.

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
Create stable tests (and no manual timeouts); Write in latest JS or TypeScript; Detect JS errors in your code; Launch concurrent tests; Build readable tests with PageObject; Include tests in continuous integration system; Rapid test development
Statistics
GitHub Stars
-
GitHub Stars
9.9K
GitHub Forks
-
GitHub Forks
678
Stacks
15.2K
Stacks
262
Followers
4.1K
Followers
273
Votes
175
Votes
26
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
    Documentation
  • 4
    Ambiguous configuration
  • 3
    Difficult
  • 2
    Difficult to run single test/describe/file
  • 2
    Many bugs still not fixed months/years after reporting
Pros
  • 8
    Cross-browser testing
  • 4
    Open source
  • 4
    Built in waits
  • 4
    Easy setup/installation
  • 3
    UI End to End testing
Cons
  • 9
    No longer free
Integrations
No integrations available
TypeScript
TypeScript
JavaScript
JavaScript
Jenkins
Jenkins
Travis CI
Travis CI
TeamCity
TeamCity

What are some alternatives to Jest, TestCafe?

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.

Robot Framework

Robot Framework

It is a generic test automation framework for acceptance testing and acceptance test-driven development. It has easy-to-use tabular test data syntax and it utilizes the keyword-driven testing approach. Its testing capabilities can be extended by test libraries implemented either with Python or Java, and users can create new higher-level keywords from existing ones using the same syntax that is used for creating test cases.

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.

Karate DSL

Karate DSL

Combines API test-automation, mocks and performance-testing into a single, unified framework. The BDD syntax popularized by Cucumber is language-neutral, and easy for even non-programmers. Besides powerful JSON & XML assertions, you can run tests in parallel for speed - which is critical for HTTP API testing.

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.

Cucumber

Cucumber

Cucumber is a tool that supports Behaviour-Driven Development (BDD) - a software development process that aims to enhance software quality and reduce maintenance costs.

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.

Spock Framework

Spock Framework

It is a testing and specification framework for Java and Groovy applications. What makes it stand out from the crowd is its beautiful and highly expressive specification language. It is compatible with most IDEs, build tools, and continuous integration servers.

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