Alternatives to Ghost Inspector logo

Alternatives to Ghost Inspector

BrowserStack, Selenium, Cypress, Mocha, and Jest are the most popular alternatives and competitors to Ghost Inspector.
55
85
+ 1
22

What is Ghost Inspector and what are its top alternatives?

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.
Ghost Inspector is a tool in the In-Browser Testing category of a tech stack.
Ghost Inspector is an open source tool with GitHub stars and GitHub forks. Here’s a link to Ghost Inspector's open source repository on GitHub

Top Alternatives to Ghost Inspector

  • BrowserStack

    BrowserStack

    BrowserStack is a leading software testing platform for developers to comprehensively test their websites and mobile applications across 2,000+ real browsers and devices in a single cloud platform—and at scale. ...

  • Selenium

    Selenium

    Selenium automates browsers. That's it! What you do with that power is entirely up to you. Primarily, it is for automating web applications for testing purposes, but is certainly not limited to just that. Boring web-based administration tasks can (and should!) also be automated as well. ...

  • 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. ...

  • 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.

  • 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. ...

  • Chai

    Chai

    It is a BDD / TDD assertion library for node and the browser that can be delightfully paired with any javascript testing framework. It has several interfaces that allow the developer to choose the most comfortable. The chain-capable BDD styles provide an expressive language & readable style, while the TDD assert style provides a more classical feel. ...

  • Karma

    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. ...

Ghost Inspector alternatives & related posts

BrowserStack logo

BrowserStack

2.6K
1.9K
430
BrowserStack is a software testing platform for developers to comprehensively test websites and mobile applications
2.6K
1.9K
+ 1
430
PROS OF BROWSERSTACK
  • 130
    Multiple browsers
  • 71
    Ease of use
  • 59
    Real browsers
  • 40
    Ability to use it locally
  • 22
    Good price
  • 17
    Great web interface
  • 15
    IE support
  • 13
    Official mobile emulators
  • 12
    Cloud-based access
  • 11
    Instant access
  • 7
    Real mobile devices
  • 5
    Multiple Desktop OS
  • 4
    Screenshots
  • 4
    Can be used for Testing and E2E
  • 4
    Selenium compatible
  • 3
    Pre-installed developer tools
  • 3
    Video of test runs
  • 2
    Favourites
  • 2
    Webdriver compatible
  • 2
    Supports Manual, Functional and Visual Diff Testing
  • 2
    Many browsers
  • 1
    Free for Open Source
  • 1
    Cypress Compatible
CONS OF BROWSERSTACK
  • 1
    Very limited choice of minor versions

related BrowserStack posts

Zarema Khalilova
Frontend Team Lead at Uploadcare · | 6 upvotes · 195.3K views

I am working on #OpenSource file uploader. The uploader is the widget that other developers embed in their apps. It should work well in different browsers and on different devices. BrowserStack and Sauce Labs help to achieve that. I can test the uploader in many varieties of browsers+OS only used my browser without virtual machines.

See more
Selenium logo

Selenium

11K
8.4K
519
Web Browser Automation
11K
8.4K
+ 1
519
PROS OF SELENIUM
  • 169
    Automates browsers
  • 154
    Testing
  • 101
    Essential tool for running test automation
  • 24
    Record-Playback
  • 24
    Remote Control
  • 8
    Data crawling
  • 7
    Supports end to end testing
  • 6
    Functional testing
  • 6
    Easy set up
  • 4
    The Most flexible monitoring system
  • 3
    Easy to integrate with build tools
  • 3
    End to End Testing
  • 2
    Integration Tests
  • 2
    Comparing the performance selenium is faster than jasm
  • 2
    Record and playback
  • 2
    Compatible with Python
  • 2
    Easy to scale
  • 0
    Integrated into Selenium-Jupiter framework
CONS OF SELENIUM
  • 7
    Flaky tests
  • 2
    Slow as needs to make browser (even with no gui)

related Selenium posts

Kamil Kowalski
Lead Architect at Fresha · | 27 upvotes · 1.2M views

When you think about test automation, it’s crucial to make it everyone’s responsibility (not just QA Engineers'). We started with Selenium and Java, but with our platform revolving around Ruby, Elixir and JavaScript, QA Engineers were left alone to automate tests. Cypress was the answer, as we could switch to JS and simply involve more people from day one. There's a downside too, as it meant testing on Chrome only, but that was "good enough" for us + if really needed we can always cover some specific cases in a different way.

See more
Benjamin Poon
QA Manager - Engineering at HBC Digital · | 8 upvotes · 749.8K views

For our digital QA organization to support a complex hybrid monolith/microservice architecture, our team took on the lofty goal of building out a commonized UI test automation framework. One of the primary requisites included a technical minimalist threshold such that an engineer or analyst with fundamental knowledge of JavaScript could automate their tests with greater ease. Just to list a few: - Nightwatchjs - Selenium - Cucumber - GitHub - Go.CD - Docker - ExpressJS - React - PostgreSQL

With this structure, we're able to combine the automation efforts of each team member into a centralized repository while also providing new relevant metrics to business owners.

See more
Cypress logo

Cypress

1.4K
1.5K
100
When testing is easy, developers build better things faster and with confidence.
1.4K
1.5K
+ 1
100
PROS OF CYPRESS
  • 25
    Open source
  • 18
    Great documentation
  • 17
    Fast
  • 16
    Simple usage
  • 10
    Cross Browser testing
  • 9
    Easy us with CI
  • 4
    Npm install cypress only
  • 1
    Good for beginner automation engineers
CONS OF CYPRESS
  • 19
    Cypress is weak at cross-browser testing
  • 12
    Switch tabs : Cypress can'nt support
  • 11
    No iFrame support
  • 8
    No file upload support
  • 8
    No xPath support
  • 8
    No multiple domain support
  • 8
    No page object support
  • 7
    Re-run failed tests retries not supported yet
  • 7
    Cypress doesn't support native app
  • 7
    No support for multiple tab control
  • 6
    No support for multiple browser control
  • 6
    No support for Safari
  • 4
    $20/user/thread for reports
  • 4
    Not freeware
  • 4
    Adobe
  • 3
    No 'WD wire protocol' support
  • 3
    Using a non-standard automation protocol

related Cypress posts

Kamil Kowalski
Lead Architect at Fresha · | 27 upvotes · 1.2M views

When you think about test automation, it’s crucial to make it everyone’s responsibility (not just QA Engineers'). We started with Selenium and Java, but with our platform revolving around Ruby, Elixir and JavaScript, QA Engineers were left alone to automate tests. Cypress was the answer, as we could switch to JS and simply involve more people from day one. There's a downside too, as it meant testing on Chrome only, but that was "good enough" for us + if really needed we can always cover some specific cases in a different way.

See more
Robert Zuber

We are in the process of adopting Next.js as our React framework and using Storybook to help build our React components in isolation. This new part of our frontend is written in TypeScript, and we use Emotion for CSS/styling. For delivering data, we use GraphQL and Apollo. Jest, Percy, and Cypress are used for testing.

See more
Mocha logo

Mocha

4.6K
2.6K
425
Simple, flexible, fun javascript test framework for node.js & the browser
4.6K
2.6K
+ 1
425
PROS OF MOCHA
  • 136
    Open source
  • 100
    Simple
  • 81
    Promise support
  • 48
    Flexible
  • 28
    Easy to add support for Generators
  • 12
    For browser and server testing
  • 7
    Curstom assertion libraries
  • 4
    Works with Karma
  • 3
    No other better tools
  • 1
    Simple integration testing
  • 1
    Default reporter is nice, clean, and itemized
  • 1
    Simple setup
  • 1
    Works with saucelabs
  • 1
    Lots of tutorials and help online
  • 1
    Works with BrowserStack
CONS OF MOCHA
  • 3
    Cannot test a promisified functions without assertion
  • 2
    No assertion count in results
  • 1
    Not as many reporter options as Jest

related Mocha posts

I use both mocha and Jest because:

  • I don't care whether teams use Jest or Mocha. But jest is way too overhyped. Most devs are writing integration tests and think that it's so much better but frankly I don't write integration tests as the way to get both design feedback and confidence when I code. I adhere to the test pyramid, not ice cream cone or the dumb "trophy"

  • I TDD, so I only ever use the "API" of test frameworks. I don't do a lot of integration tests for TDD and all the bells and whistles Jest provides you from the command-line I just don't need. And I certainly do not care about or touch Jest Snapshots, I despise them

  • My tests are fast enough because I write isolated tests with TDD, so I don't run into performance issues. Example: I write my tests in a way that I can run 300 tests in literally 1 second with mocha. So the Jest ability to pinpoint and only run those tests which are affected by code changes. I want to run all of them every time when I TDD. It's a different mindset when you TDD

  • I also mainly code in IntelliJ or WebStorm because I feel the tools in that IDE far surpass VSCode and I also love running the test UI runner in it vs. lousy command-line

  • I feel both mocha and Jest read just fine in terms of code readability. Jest might have shorter assertion syntax but I don't really care. I just care that I can read the damn test and my tests are written well and my test descriptions, as well as the code itself including constants represent business language, not technical. I care most about BDD, clean code, 4 rules of simple design, and SOLID

  • I don't like using mock frameworks so no I don't use Jest's Mocking framework. I don't have to mock a lot in my tests due to the nature of how I strive to code...I keep my design simple and modular using principals such as clean code and 4 rules of simple design. If I must mock, I create very simple custom mocks with JS

  • On the contrary to the belief that integration tests and mount are the way to go (this belief drives me absolutely crazy, especially Dodd's promoting that), I TDD with shallow & enzyme. My tests are simple. My design is driven by my tests and my tests give me quick and useful feedback. I have a course I'm working on coming out soon on TDD with React to show you how to truly test the FE and why the ice cream cone and trophy suck (you're being scammed people). Watch for that here: https://twitter.com/DaveSchinkel/status/1062267649235791873

Don't forget to upvote this post!

Mocha Jest JavaScript React @jsdom Enzyme #tdd #bdd #testdrivendevelopment

See more
Jack Graves
Head of Product Development at Automation Consultants · | 3 upvotes · 122.1K views

We use JUnit and Jest to perform the bulk of our automated test scenarios, with additional work with Apache JMeter for performance testing - for example, the Atlassian Data Center compliance testing is performed with JMeter. Jest provides testing for the React interfaces, which make up the backend of our App offerings. JUnit is used for Unit Testing our Server-based Apps. Mocha is another tool we use.

See more
Jest logo

Jest

4.4K
2.5K
168
Painless JavaScript Unit Testing
4.4K
2.5K
+ 1
168
PROS OF JEST
  • 35
    Open source
  • 31
    Mock by default makes testing much simpler
  • 22
    Testing React Native Apps
  • 19
    Parallel test running
  • 15
    Fast
  • 13
    Bundled with JSDOM to enable DOM testing
  • 8
    Mock by default screws up your classes, breaking tests
  • 7
    Out of the box code coverage
  • 6
    One stop shop for unit testing
  • 6
    Promise support
  • 3
    Great documentation
  • 1
    Built in watch option with interactive filtering menu
  • 1
    Preset support
  • 1
    Assert Library Included
  • 0
    Can be used for BDD
CONS OF JEST
  • 3
    Documentation
  • 3
    Ambiguous configuration
  • 2
    Multiple error messages for same error
  • 2
    Difficult to run single test/describe/file
  • 2
    Ambiguous
  • 2
    Many bugs still not fixed months/years after reporting
  • 2
    Difficult
  • 1
    Bugged
  • 1
    Reporter is too general
  • 1
    BeforeAll timing out makes all passing tests fail
  • 1
    Unstable
  • 1
    Bad docs
  • 1
    Still does't support .mjs files natively
  • 1
    Can't fail beforeAll to abort tests
  • 0
    Interaction with watch mode on terminal

related Jest posts

Robert Zuber

We are in the process of adopting Next.js as our React framework and using Storybook to help build our React components in isolation. This new part of our frontend is written in TypeScript, and we use Emotion for CSS/styling. For delivering data, we use GraphQL and Apollo. Jest, Percy, and Cypress are used for testing.

See more
Shared insights
on
CypressCypressJestJest

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.

See more
Jasmine logo

Jasmine

1.7K
1.3K
184
DOM-less simple JavaScript testing framework
1.7K
1.3K
+ 1
184
PROS OF JASMINE
  • 62
    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
    Async and promises are easy calls with "done"
  • 1
    Jasmine is faster than selenium in angular application
  • 1
    SpyOn to fake calls
CONS OF JASMINE
  • 2
    Unfriendly error logs

related Jasmine posts

Joshua Dean Küpper
CEO at Scrayos UG (haftungsbeschränkt) · | 6 upvotes · 117.7K views

For our internal team and collaboration panel we use Nuxt.js (with TypeScript that is transpiled into ES6), Webpack and npm. We enjoy the opinionated nature of Nuxt.js over vanilla Vue.js, as we would end up using all of the components Nuxt.js incorporates anyways and we can adhere to the conventions setup by the Nuxt.js project, which allows us to get better support in case we run into any dead ends. Webpack allows us to create reproducable builds and also debug our application with hot reloads, which greately increased the pace at which we are able to perform and test changes. We also incorporated a lot of testing (ESLint, Chai, Jasmine, Nightwatchjs) into our pipelines and can trigger those jobs through GitLab CI. All packages are fetched through npm, so that we can keep our git repositories slim and are notified of new updates aswell as reported security flaws.

See more
Sai Chaitanya Mankala
Tech Lead at KIOT Innovations · | 5 upvotes · 39.6K views

Protractor or Cypress for ionic-angular?

We have a huge ionic-angular app with almost 100 pages and 10+ injectables. There are no tests written yet. Before we start, we need some suggestions about the framework. Would you suggest Cypress or Angular's Protractor with Jasmine / Karma for a heavy ionic app with Angular?

See more
Chai logo

Chai

1.4K
152
0
A BDD / TDD assertion library
1.4K
152
+ 1
0
PROS OF CHAI
    Be the first to leave a pro
    CONS OF CHAI
      Be the first to leave a con

      related Chai posts

      Joshua Dean Küpper
      CEO at Scrayos UG (haftungsbeschränkt) · | 6 upvotes · 117.7K views

      For our internal team and collaboration panel we use Nuxt.js (with TypeScript that is transpiled into ES6), Webpack and npm. We enjoy the opinionated nature of Nuxt.js over vanilla Vue.js, as we would end up using all of the components Nuxt.js incorporates anyways and we can adhere to the conventions setup by the Nuxt.js project, which allows us to get better support in case we run into any dead ends. Webpack allows us to create reproducable builds and also debug our application with hot reloads, which greately increased the pace at which we are able to perform and test changes. We also incorporated a lot of testing (ESLint, Chai, Jasmine, Nightwatchjs) into our pipelines and can trigger those jobs through GitLab CI. All packages are fetched through npm, so that we can keep our git repositories slim and are notified of new updates aswell as reported security flaws.

      See more

      React LoopBack Node.js ExpressJS Elasticsearch Kibana Logstash Sequelize Mocha Chai Visual Studio Code are the combo of technologies being used by me to build BestPrice Extension with all its micro-services & Web-based fragments

      See more
      Karma logo

      Karma

      1.4K
      549
      181
      Spectacular Test Runner for JavaScript
      1.4K
      549
      + 1
      181
      PROS OF KARMA
      • 61
        Test Runner
      • 35
        Open source
      • 27
        Continuous Integration
      • 22
        Great for running tests
      • 18
        Test on Real Devices
      • 11
        Backed by google
      • 5
        Easy Debugging
      • 2
        Remote Control
      CONS OF KARMA
      • 1
        Slow, because tests are run in a real browser
      • 1
        Requires the use of hacks to find tests dynamically

      related Karma posts

      Sai Chaitanya Mankala
      Tech Lead at KIOT Innovations · | 5 upvotes · 39.6K views

      Protractor or Cypress for ionic-angular?

      We have a huge ionic-angular app with almost 100 pages and 10+ injectables. There are no tests written yet. Before we start, we need some suggestions about the framework. Would you suggest Cypress or Angular's Protractor with Jasmine / Karma for a heavy ionic app with Angular?

      See more

      Switched from Jasmine with Karma that come setup by Angular CLI to use Jest instead, since Jasmine and Karma were very finicky in my setup and had to be reconfigured frequently to run tests properly.

      Jest was also easier to integrate into my workflow with Visual Studio Code.

      See more