Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Capybara vs Cypress: What are the differences?
Introduction
In this comparison, we will discuss the key differences between Capybara and Cypress.
Architecture and Approach: Capybara is a Ruby-based testing framework that operates in a headless environment using a mix of several tools like Selenium, Rack-Test, and Poltergeist. It follows a DSL (Domain Specific Language) approach and provides a high-level abstraction for web interactions. On the other hand, Cypress is a JavaScript-based end-to-end testing framework that runs directly in the browser. It operates in a headful environment and offers a developer-friendly API.
Synchronization: Capybara provides implicit waiting, which means it waits for a certain amount of time before performing an action. This can lead to slower test execution and makes it harder to catch asynchronous issues. Cypress, on the other hand, uses automatic waiting and retries, which eliminates the need for explicit waits and makes the tests faster and more reliable by automatically synchronizing with the application.
Debugging Capabilities: Capybara lacks robust debugging capabilities. It provides simple logging and requires external tools and libraries for debugging and troubleshooting test failures. In contrast, Cypress has built-in debugging capabilities. It allows developers to pause and debug their tests directly within the browser, making it easier to identify and fix issues.
Browser Support: Capybara supports multiple browsers through the use of different drivers like Selenium, Poltergeist, and Capybara Webkit. However, the setup and configuration for each driver can be complex. On the other hand, Cypress supports only modern web browsers, including Chrome, Firefox, and Electron. This limited browser support allows Cypress to provide a more streamlined and consistent testing experience.
Installation and Setup: Capybara requires additional setup and configuration to work with different drivers and headless environments. It also has dependencies on other tools like Selenium and PhantomJS. In comparison, Cypress provides a simple installation process without any external dependencies. It can be set up quickly and easily, making it more beginner-friendly.
Community and Ecosystem: Capybara is a mature and well-established framework with a large community and a wide range of plugins and extensions available. This extensive ecosystem provides a lot of flexibility and options for customization. On the other hand, Cypress is a relatively new framework but has been rapidly gaining popularity. It has a smaller community but is highly focused and actively maintained, offering a more tightly integrated ecosystem.
In summary, Capybara is a Ruby-based testing framework with a DSL approach, while Cypress is a JavaScript-based framework that runs directly in the browser. Capybara provides implicit waiting, lacks strong debugging capabilities, supports multiple browsers but requires complex setup, and has a mature ecosystem. Cypress, on the other hand, offers automatic waiting, built-in debugging capabilities, limited browser support, easy installation, and a focused ecosystem.
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...
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
Please try Handow, the e2e tool basing on Puppeteer.
Gherkin syntax compatible
Chrome/Chromium orentied, driven by Puppeteer engine
Complete JavaScript programming
Create test suites rapidly without coding (or a little bit), basing on built-in steps library
Schedule test with plans and arrange stories with sequential stages
Fast running, execute story groups in parallel by multi-workers
Built-in single page report render
Cover page view, REST API and cookies test
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.
Pros of Capybara
- Best acceptance test framework for Ruby on Rails apps12
- Synchronous with Rack::Test2
- Fast with Rack::Test1
Pros of Cypress
- Open source29
- Great documentation22
- Simple usage20
- Fast18
- Cross Browser testing10
- Easy us with CI9
- Npm install cypress only5
- Good for beginner automation engineers2
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Capybara
- Hard to make reproducible tests when using with browser1
Cons of Cypress
- Cypress is weak at cross-browser testing21
- Switch tabs : Cypress can'nt support14
- No iFrame support12
- No page object support9
- No multiple domain support9
- No file upload support8
- No support for multiple tab control8
- No xPath support8
- No support for Safari7
- Cypress doesn't support native app7
- Re-run failed tests retries not supported yet7
- No support for multiple browser control7
- $20/user/thread for reports5
- Adobe4
- Using a non-standard automation protocol4
- Not freeware4
- No 'WD wire protocol' support3