Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Ghost Inspector vs Protractor: What are the differences?
Ghost Inspector: Catch website bugs and regressions before they cost you. Ghost Inspector lets you create and manage UI tests that check specific functionality in your website or application. We execute these automated browser tests continuously from the cloud and alert you if anything breaks; Protractor: End-to-end test framework for Angular and AngularJS applications. Protractor is an end-to-end test framework for Angular and AngularJS applications. Protractor runs tests against your application running in a real browser, interacting with it as a user would.
Ghost Inspector and Protractor can be primarily classified as "Javascript Testing Framework" tools.
"Simple test editor" is the top reason why over 2 developers like Ghost Inspector, while over 2 developers mention "Quick tests implementation" as the leading cause for choosing Protractor.
Protractor is an open source tool with 8.28K GitHub stars and 2.26K GitHub forks. Here's a link to Protractor's open source repository on GitHub.
PeopleKeep, Omaze, and Garlic Tech Ltd are some of the popular companies that use Protractor, whereas Ghost Inspector is used by Binary.com, Twig World, and Vestiaire Collective. Protractor has a broader approval, being mentioned in 40 company stacks & 101 developers stacks; compared to Ghost Inspector, which is listed in 21 company stacks and 16 developer stacks.
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
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
Pros of Protractor
- Easy setup9
- Quick tests implementation8
- Flexible6
- Open source5
- Promise support5
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Ghost Inspector
- Support Cross-device testing (device, web)1
- Load & Performance testing0
- Flash Support inside browser0
Cons of Protractor
- Limited4