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. Enzyme vs Jasmine

Enzyme vs Jasmine

OverviewDecisionsComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Jasmine
Jasmine
Stacks4.8K
Followers1.5K
Votes187
Enzyme
Enzyme
Stacks1.7K
Followers349
Votes0

Enzyme vs Jasmine: What are the differences?

Introduction

Enzyme and Jasmine are both popular JavaScript testing frameworks used for testing React applications. However, there are key differences between the two.

  1. Shallow Rendering vs Full Rendering: Enzyme allows for shallow rendering, which means that it only renders the component being tested and none of its children. This can be useful for isolating and testing specific components. On the other hand, Jasmine uses full rendering, which renders the entire component tree. This can be beneficial for testing the interaction between components and their children.

  2. API Design: Enzyme has a more intuitive and easy-to-use API design compared to Jasmine. Enzyme provides a set of utility functions such as mount, shallow, and render that make it easier to manipulate and traverse React component trees. Jasmine, on the other hand, has a more traditional API for writing tests.

  3. Test Runner: Jasmine includes its own test runner, which means that you can write and execute tests without the need for any additional tools or libraries. Enzyme, on the other hand, requires a test runner like Jest or Mocha to run the tests.

  4. Component Selection: Enzyme provides several ways to select components for testing, including selectors like find, filter, contains, and hasClass. These selectors make it easier to select and interact with specific components and their properties. Jasmine, on the other hand, does not provide built-in selectors for component selection and manipulation.

  5. DOM Testing: Enzyme provides a robust set of APIs for interacting with and testing the DOM. It allows you to simulate events, test DOM state, and verify component output. Jasmine, on the other hand, does not have built-in features for DOM testing and requires additional libraries or custom code.

  6. Dependencies: Enzyme has a dependency on React, as it is specifically designed for testing React components. Jasmine, on the other hand, is a more general-purpose testing framework and does not have any specific dependencies on React.

In summary, Enzyme and Jasmine are both useful testing frameworks, but they differ in terms of rendering methods, API design, test runners, component selection, DOM testing capabilities, and dependencies.

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 Jasmine, Enzyme

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
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

Jasmine
Jasmine
Enzyme
Enzyme

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.

Enzyme is a JavaScript Testing utility for React that makes it easier to assert, manipulate, and traverse your React Components' output.

-
Shallow rendering; Full DOM rendering; Static rendered markup; React Hooks support
Statistics
Stacks
4.8K
Stacks
1.7K
Followers
1.5K
Followers
349
Votes
187
Votes
0
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 64
    Can also be used for tdd
  • 49
    Open source
  • 19
    Originally from RSpec
  • 15
    Great community
  • 14
    No dependencies, not even DOM
Cons
  • 2
    Unfriendly error logs
No community feedback yet
Integrations
No integrations available
React
React

What are some alternatives to Jasmine, Enzyme?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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