Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Cypress vs Ghost Inspector: What are the differences?
Introduction: Cypress and Ghost Inspector are both popular automated testing tools that are used to build and execute automated tests for web applications. However, there are some key differences between these two tools that set them apart in terms of functionalities and capabilities.
Browser support: Cypress is known for its support for only one browser at a time, which is Google Chrome. It runs directly in the browser and controls every aspect of it. On the other hand, Ghost Inspector supports multiple browsers including Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Internet Explorer. This makes Ghost Inspector more versatile and suitable for testing applications across various browsers.
Test building experience: Cypress provides developers with a unique test building experience by allowing them to write tests directly in the browser in real-time. It provides a visual editor to make the process easier and more intuitive. In contrast, Ghost Inspector relies on creating tests via a web app interface and using a simplified scripting language. While this approach may be easier for non-developers, it may not provide the same level of flexibility as Cypress for developers.
Continuous Integration (CI) integration: Cypress offers seamless integration with popular CI tools like Jenkins, Travis CI, and CircleCI. This makes it easy to incorporate Cypress tests into the development pipeline and execute them automatically on every code commit. Ghost Inspector also supports CI integration but may require additional configuration and setup compared to Cypress.
Parallel execution: Cypress allows tests to be executed in parallel, enabling faster test execution times and better scalability. It provides options to parallelize tests across multiple machines or browser instances. Ghost Inspector, on the other hand, does not natively support parallel execution of tests. This can be a limitation when it comes to scaling up and running tests concurrently.
Network stubbing and mocking: Cypress provides robust network stubbing and mocking capabilities. It allows developers to intercept network requests and modify responses to simulate different scenarios and test edge cases. Ghost Inspector, on the other hand, does not offer native network stubbing and mocking features. This can be a drawback for testers who rely heavily on simulating different network conditions during their tests.
Pricing model: Cypress is an open-source testing tool and provides most of its features for free. However, it also offers a premium version called Cypress Dashboard that provides additional features like test recording, advanced debugging, and team collaboration. Ghost Inspector, on the other hand, follows a subscription-based pricing model where the cost is determined based on the number of tests and test runs. This can significantly impact the cost factor for organizations with large test suites.
In Summary, Cypress and Ghost Inspector differ in their browser support, test building experience, CI integration, parallel execution capability, network stubbing and mocking features, and pricing model. Understanding these differences can help organizations choose the right tool based on their specific testing requirements.
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 Cypress
- Open source29
- Great documentation22
- Simple usage20
- Fast18
- Cross Browser testing10
- Easy us with CI9
- Npm install cypress only5
- Good for beginner automation engineers2
Pros of Ghost Inspector
- No code required3
- Runscope integration3
- Simple test editor3
- Screenshot comparison2
- Videos of every test run2
- Primarily focus on functional testing1
- Easy to use API enables remote control1
- Data-Driven testing1
- Minimal effort to migrate to another tool like Selenium1
- Partials and Variables enable fast test creation1
- 30-40 in-parallel tests for cheap1
- Detailed Documentation1
- Supports end to end testing with Runscope1
- Extensive Integrations available1
- Scheduling tests0
- Licensed but cheaper compared to other tools0
- Email notification and Alerts0
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
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
Cons of Ghost Inspector
- Support Cross-device testing (device, web)1
- Load & Performance testing0
- Flash Support inside browser0
Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions
What is Cypress?
What is Ghost Inspector?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
What companies use Cypress?
What companies use Ghost Inspector?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
What tools integrate with Cypress?
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
Blog Posts
+32