Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Cypress vs Nightwatchjs: What are the differences?
Cypress and Nightwatch.js are both popular JavaScript end-to-end testing frameworks for web applications. Although they share similarities, there are key differences between them that distinguish their functionality and approach.
Syntax and Structure: Cypress offers a declarative syntax that allows tests to be written more intuitively, while Nightwatch.js follows a traditional imperative approach. Cypress uses a more chained method style to write test cases, where each command acts on the previous ones. On the other hand, Nightwatch.js uses a simpler command-driven approach that can be easier for developers familiar with traditional testing frameworks.
Architecture: Cypress runs directly in the browser and can directly manipulate application's internals, allowing for faster execution and real-time debugging. In contrast, Nightwatch.js uses WebDriver protocol to communicate with browsers, resulting in slower execution and less control over the application's internals.
Installation and Configuration: Cypress requires a separate installation, as it runs in a Node.js process and requires its own dependencies. Nightwatch.js, on the other hand, can be installed as a global package, making it easier to set up and configure.
Test Execution: Cypress uses a unique architecture that allows it to run tests directly in the browser, providing real-time reloading and debugging features. Nightwatch.js runs tests in a separate WebDriver client/server setup, which can impact performance and make debugging more challenging.
Automation Support: Cypress is designed specifically for web browser automation and supports modern JavaScript frameworks and libraries out of the box. Nightwatch.js, while also supporting web browser automation, provides more extensive support for various testing scenarios, such as mobile testing, integration with third-party tools, and using cloud services for testing.
Community and Ecosystem: Cypress has a smaller but rapidly growing community and ecosystem compared to Nightwatch.js. Nightwatch.js, being a mature and established framework, has a larger community and a wider range of plugins and integrations available.
In summary, Cypress offers a more intuitive syntax and architecture for writing tests, while Nightwatch.js provides a more traditional and versatile approach with extensive automation support and a larger community. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements and preferences of the testing project.
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 engineers1
Pros of Nightwatchjs
- Open source3
- Testing2
- Automates browsers2
- Better cross browser (use selenium)1
- Cross-Browser Testing1
- Multiple Browser Support1
- Parallel Test Running1
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 Nightwatchjs
- No automatic wait2
- Less flexibility1
- Limited native mobile app support1
- Limited browser support1
- Configuration complexity1