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. Mocha vs Protractor

Mocha vs Protractor

OverviewDecisionsComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Mocha
Mocha
Stacks10.8K
Followers3.0K
Votes430
Protractor
Protractor
Stacks2.2K
Followers544
Votes33
GitHub Stars8.7K
Forks2.3K

Mocha vs Protractor: What are the differences?

Introduction

Mocha and Protractor are both popular frameworks used for testing web applications. However, they have several key differences that set them apart. In this article, we will explore these differences and provide a concise comparison between Mocha and Protractor.

  1. Testing Framework vs. End-to-End Testing Framework: The primary difference between Mocha and Protractor lies in their purpose. Mocha is a testing framework that can be used for various types of testing, including unit testing and integration testing. On the other hand, Protractor is an end-to-end testing framework specifically designed for testing AngularJS applications.

  2. Supported Languages: Mocha is a JavaScript testing framework and can be used with any JavaScript-based development stack. It is not limited to a specific language or technology. Protractor, on the other hand, is primarily used with AngularJS applications and supports only JavaScript for writing test cases.

  3. Asynchronous Testing: Mocha provides built-in support for handling asynchronous operations in tests. It allows developers to use callbacks, promises, or async/await syntax for handling asynchronous code. Protractor, being an end-to-end testing framework, is designed specifically for testing asynchronous AngularJS applications, and it handles asynchronous operations automatically. Developers do not need to use additional libraries or handle asynchronous code explicitly.

  4. Browser Automation: Protractor comes with built-in browser automation capabilities using WebDriverJS, which is a WebDriver implementation specifically designed for AngularJS applications. This makes it easier to automate browser actions and interact with AngularJS-specific elements. Mocha, being a generic testing framework, does not provide browser automation out of the box. To automate browser interactions, developers need to use additional libraries such as Selenium WebDriver.

  5. AngularJS Integration: Protractor is tightly integrated with AngularJS and provides special features for testing AngularJS-specific functionality, such as synchronization with AngularJS event loop and automatic waiting for AngularJS promises to resolve. Mocha, being a generic testing framework, does not have these special integrations with AngularJS and does not provide these features out of the box.

  6. Community and Ecosystem: Mocha has a larger community and ecosystem compared to Protractor. It is a widely used testing framework and has a rich collection of plugins, integrations, and community-driven tools available. Protractor, being a specialized framework for testing AngularJS applications, has a smaller community and ecosystem in comparison.

In summary, Mocha is a versatile testing framework that can be used for various types of testing, while Protractor is specifically designed for end-to-end testing of AngularJS applications. Protractor provides built-in browser automation and AngularJS-specific integrations, but Mocha has a larger community and ecosystem.

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 Mocha, Protractor

Yildiz
Yildiz

testmanager/automation tester at medicalservice

May 12, 2020

Needs adviceonAngularJSAngularJSTypeScriptTypeScriptCypressCypress

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...

277k views277k
Comments
Kevin
Kevin

QE Systems Engineer at Discovery, Inc.

Jan 11, 2021

Review

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

171k views171k
Comments
Abigail
Abigail

Dec 10, 2019

Decided

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.

231k views231k
Comments

Detailed Comparison

Mocha
Mocha
Protractor
Protractor

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.

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.

browser support;simple async support, including promises;test coverage reporting;string diff support;javascript API for running tests;proper exit status for CI support etc;auto-detects and disables coloring for non-ttys;maps uncaught exceptions to the correct test case;async test timeout support;test-specific timeouts;growl notification support;reports test durations;highlights slow tests;file watcher support;global variable leak detection
Test Like a User; For Angular Apps; Automatic Waiting
Statistics
GitHub Stars
-
GitHub Stars
8.7K
GitHub Forks
-
GitHub Forks
2.3K
Stacks
10.8K
Stacks
2.2K
Followers
3.0K
Followers
544
Votes
430
Votes
33
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 137
    Open source
  • 102
    Simple
  • 81
    Promise support
  • 48
    Flexible
  • 29
    Easy to add support for Generators
Cons
  • 3
    Cannot test a promisified functions without assertion
  • 2
    No assertion count in results
  • 1
    Not as many reporter options as Jest
Pros
  • 9
    Easy setup
  • 8
    Quick tests implementation
  • 6
    Flexible
  • 5
    Open source
  • 5
    Promise support
Cons
  • 4
    Limited
Integrations
No integrations available
AngularJS
AngularJS
Angular
Angular

What are some alternatives to Mocha, Protractor?

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.

Jest

Jest

Jest provides you with multiple layers on top of Jasmine.

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.

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.

QUnit

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!

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