Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Cypress vs Rainforest QA: What are the differences?
1. Integration with Development Process: One key difference between Cypress and Rainforest QA is their integration with the development process. Cypress is specifically designed to be integrated seamlessly into the development workflow. It allows developers to write tests directly in the same language as their application code (JavaScript) and run them in the browser alongside their application. On the other hand, Rainforest QA is a cloud-based testing platform that integrates with your existing test automation frameworks and CI/CD pipelines. It provides a platform for creating, executing, and managing test cases, which can be run in parallel across different environments.
2. Testing Paradigm: Another difference lies in the testing paradigms employed by Cypress and Rainforest QA. Cypress promotes a modern approach to testing called "end-to-end testing". It focuses on simulating real user interactions and verifying the behavior of the entire application from a user's perspective. In contrast, Rainforest QA follows a more traditional approach known as "scripted testing". It involves creating detailed test scripts that outline the steps to be executed and expected results. These scripts are then executed by human testers, ensuring a human touch in the testing process.
3. Test Automation Capabilities: Cypress and Rainforest QA also differ in their test automation capabilities. Cypress provides a comprehensive set of built-in commands and utilities that allow developers to easily write automated tests for their web applications. It supports features like mocking network requests, stubbing responses, and running tests in parallel. On the other hand, Rainforest QA focuses on providing a scalable and flexible platform for managing and executing manual and automated tests. It offers integrations with popular automation frameworks like Selenium and Appium, allowing you to leverage existing automation code while harnessing Rainforest's benefits.
4. Execution Environment: When it comes to the execution environment, Cypress executes tests directly in the browser. It runs alongside the application and has deep access to the DOM and network traffic, allowing it to provide real-time feedback and debug information. Rainforest QA, on the other hand, runs tests in a controlled cloud-based environment. It provides a range of browsers and operating systems for testing, ensuring cross-platform compatibility. This allows for easy scalability and parallel execution of tests across multiple environments.
5. Resource Requirements: Cypress and Rainforest QA also differ in their resource requirements. Cypress requires developers to have a local development environment where they can write and execute tests. It is ideal for development teams that want complete control over their testing infrastructure. Rainforest QA, on the other hand, is a cloud-based service that handles all the infrastructure and resources required for testing. This makes it an attractive option for teams that want to focus more on testing and less on managing infrastructure.
6. Pricing Model: Finally, the pricing models offered by Cypress and Rainforest QA differ as well. Cypress is an open-source tool, which means it is free to use and doesn't require any licensing fees. It provides additional paid features and premium support through its Cypress Dashboard service. Rainforest QA, on the other hand, operates on a subscription-based pricing model. It offers various pricing tiers based on the number of test runs and testers required.
In Summary, Cypress and Rainforest QA differ in their integration with the development process, testing paradigms, test automation capabilities, execution environments, resource requirements, and pricing models.
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 Rainforest QA
- Cross-browser testing13
- Powerful API7
- QA7
- Super-simple test creation7
- Easy way to get real front-end smoke tests6
- Simple5
- CI Integration5
- Manual regression testing results in 30 mins3
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