Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Cypress vs Testim: What are the differences?
Introduction
In this article, we will discuss the key differences between Cypress and Testim, two popular testing frameworks used for web application testing.
Programming Language Support: Cypress is solely based on JavaScript and supports only JavaScript for writing tests. On the other hand, Testim supports multiple programming languages including JavaScript, TypeScript, Python, and more. This flexibility in language support allows Testim to be integrated easily into existing projects written in different languages.
Testing Approach: Cypress follows the traditional approach of testing, where it runs directly in the browser and executes tests in the same run loop as the application being tested. In contrast, Testim follows a cloud-based approach, where tests are executed remotely using real browsers. This enables Testim to leverage the advantages of cloud infrastructure and provide parallel test execution, scalability, and better performance.
Test Building: Cypress provides a built-in test runner and a browser for testing, allowing developers to view and interact with the application in real-time while writing tests. It provides a rich set of APIs to interact with the application under test, making it easy to set up and write tests. Testim, on the other hand, provides a visual test builder along with code-based editing options. It uses AI-powered algorithms to automatically create and maintain tests, reducing the effort required for test creation.
Test Stability: Cypress has a unique architecture that allows it to directly control and modify the application under test. This enables Cypress to handle asynchronous operations, network requests, and other complexities effectively, resulting in stable tests. Testim, on the other hand, leverages AI to analyze the behavior of the application and automatically adapt the test to changes in the UI, making it robust and stable even when the application changes.
Reporting and Collaboration: Cypress provides detailed and interactive test reports that show the test status, command-by-command screenshots, and logs for easy debugging. It also has built-in support for video recording of test runs. Testim offers comprehensive test reports with screenshots and logs, and it integrates well with popular collaboration tools like Jira, Slack, and GitHub, allowing teams to collaborate and track issues efficiently.
Pricing and Licensing: Cypress is an open-source testing framework with a free plan for unlimited users and unlimited tests. It also offers a paid enterprise plan with additional features and support. Testim, on the other hand, provides both a free plan with limited features and a paid plan based on the number of test runs per month. The pricing model for Testim is based on usage, which may be more suitable for teams with varying testing requirements.
In summary, Cypress and Testim differ in terms of programming language support, testing approach, test building techniques, test stability, reporting and collaboration capabilities, and pricing/licensing models. Each framework has its own strengths and weaknesses, so choosing the right one depends on the specific requirements and preferences of the testing team.
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 Testim
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