StackShareStackShare
Follow on
StackShare

Discover and share technology stacks from companies around the world.

Follow on

© 2025 StackShare. All rights reserved.

Product

  • Stacks
  • Tools
  • Feed

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  1. Stackups
  2. DevOps
  3. Testing Frameworks
  4. Javascript Testing Framework
  5. Jasmine vs Jest vs Mocha

Jasmine vs Jest vs Mocha

OverviewDecisionsComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Jest
Jest
Stacks15.2K
Followers4.1K
Votes175
Jasmine
Jasmine
Stacks4.8K
Followers1.5K
Votes187
Mocha
Mocha
Stacks10.8K
Followers3.0K
Votes430

Jasmine vs Jest vs Mocha: What are the differences?

Introduction

Jasmine, Jest, and Mocha are popular JavaScript testing frameworks used for testing JavaScript code. While they have similarities, there are key differences between them in terms of features and functionality.

  1. Testing Framework Design and Syntax: Jasmine is a behavior-driven development (BDD) testing framework with a clean and descriptive syntax, making it easy to read and write tests. On the other hand, Jest is a testing framework developed by Facebook, known for its simplicity and ease of use. It focuses on providing a zero-configuration experience and comes with built-in mocking capabilities. Mocha, on the other hand, is a flexible testing framework that allows developers to choose their preferred assertion library, making it highly customizable.

  2. Asynchronous Testing: A major difference between these frameworks lies in their approach to handling asynchronous code. Jasmine uses a callback-based approach for handling asynchronous code, which can often lead to nested and complex test code. Jest, on the other hand, provides built-in support for handling async/await and promises, making it easier to write and understand asynchronous tests. Mocha is similar to Jasmine and also relies on callback-based functions for handling asynchronous code.

  3. Mocking and Spies: Another important difference lies in the mocking and spying capabilities of these frameworks. Jasmine provides a built-in mocking functionality, allowing developers to create test doubles or mock objects. It also provides spies that can track the calls made to a function. Jest, on the other hand, comes with powerful built-in mocking capabilities, allowing developers to easily mock functions and modules. It also provides spies, similar to Jasmine. Mocha, however, does not provide built-in mocking or spying features, but it can be easily extended using libraries like Sinon.js for this functionality.

  4. Performance and Speed: Performance and speed can also vary among these frameworks. Jest is known for its optimized test runner that parallelizes test execution, speeding up the overall test execution time. It also utilizes a clever caching mechanism to provide faster feedback on subsequent test runs. Jasmine, on the other hand, may suffer from slower test execution times, especially in larger test suites. Mocha is generally fast and performs well, but it does not have the parallel execution capabilities provided by Jest.

  5. Ecosystem and Community Support: The popularity and community support for a testing framework are important factors to consider. Jasmine has been around for a longer time and has a larger community, which means there is a wealth of resources and plugins available. Jest, being developed by Facebook, also has a strong community and is actively maintained. Mocha, although not backed by a specific company, has a large user base and extensive community support, making it a popular choice with a vast ecosystem of plugins and libraries.

  6. Configuration and Setup: The ease of setup and configuration can also differ among these frameworks. Jasmine and Mocha have a simpler setup and configuration process, with Mocha relying on a simple JavaScript file for configuration. Jest, however, provides a zero-configuration experience, meaning it comes with a pre-set configuration that works out of the box. This can be helpful for developers who prefer less configuration and want to start testing quickly.

In summary, Jasmine, Jest, and Mocha have distinct differences in their design, asynchronous testing capabilities, mocking and spying features, performance, ecosystem and community support, and configuration and setup processes. These differences make each framework suitable for different use cases and developer preferences.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs
CLI (Node.js)
or
Manual

Advice on Jest, Jasmine, Mocha

Dane
Dane

Feb 7, 2020

Needs adviceonCypressCypressJestJest

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.

836k views836k
Comments
Anonymous
Anonymous

Feb 6, 2020

Needs advice

Postman will be used to do integration testing with the backend API we create. It offers a clean interface to create many requests, and you can even organize these requests into collections. It helps to test the backend API first to make sure it's working before using it in the front-end. Jest can also be used for testing and is already embedded into React. Not only does it offer unit testing support in javascript, it can also do snapshot testing for the front-end to make sure components are rendering correctly. Enzyme is complementary to Jest and offers more functions such as shallow rendering. UnitTest will be used for Python testing as it is simple, has a lot of functionality and already built in with python. Sentry will be used for keeping track of errors as it is also easily integratable with Heroku because they offer it as an add-on. LogDNA will be used for tracking logs which are not errors and is also a Heroku add-on. Its good to have a separate service to record logs, monitor, track and even fix errors in real-time so our application can run more smoothly.

290k views290k
Comments

Detailed Comparison

Jest
Jest
Jasmine
Jasmine
Mocha
Mocha

Jest provides you with multiple layers on top of Jasmine.

Jasmine is a Behavior Driven Development testing framework for JavaScript. It does not rely on browsers, DOM, or any JavaScript framework. Thus it's suited for websites, Node.js projects, or anywhere that JavaScript can run.

Mocha is a feature-rich JavaScript test framework running on node.js and the browser, making asynchronous testing simple and fun. Mocha tests run serially, allowing for flexible and accurate reporting, while mapping uncaught exceptions to the correct test cases.

Familiar Approach: Built on top of the Jasmine test framework, using familiar expect(value).toBe(other) assertions;Mock by Default: Automatically mocks CommonJS modules returned by require(), making most existing code testable;Short Feedback Loop: DOM APIs are mocked and tests run in parallel via a small node.js command line utility
-
browser support;simple async support, including promises;test coverage reporting;string diff support;javascript API for running tests;proper exit status for CI support etc;auto-detects and disables coloring for non-ttys;maps uncaught exceptions to the correct test case;async test timeout support;test-specific timeouts;growl notification support;reports test durations;highlights slow tests;file watcher support;global variable leak detection
Statistics
Stacks
15.2K
Stacks
4.8K
Stacks
10.8K
Followers
4.1K
Followers
1.5K
Followers
3.0K
Votes
175
Votes
187
Votes
430
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 36
    Open source
  • 32
    Mock by default makes testing much simpler
  • 23
    Testing React Native Apps
  • 20
    Parallel test running
  • 16
    Fast
Cons
  • 4
    Ambiguous configuration
  • 4
    Documentation
  • 3
    Difficult
  • 2
    Multiple error messages for same error
  • 2
    Ambiguous
Pros
  • 64
    Can also be used for tdd
  • 49
    Open source
  • 19
    Originally from RSpec
  • 15
    Great community
  • 14
    No dependencies, not even DOM
Cons
  • 2
    Unfriendly error logs
Pros
  • 137
    Open source
  • 102
    Simple
  • 81
    Promise support
  • 48
    Flexible
  • 29
    Easy to add support for Generators
Cons
  • 3
    Cannot test a promisified functions without assertion
  • 2
    No assertion count in results
  • 1
    Not as many reporter options as Jest

What are some alternatives to Jest, Jasmine, Mocha?

Cypress

Cypress

Cypress is a front end automated testing application created for the modern web. Cypress is built on a new architecture and runs in the same run-loop as the application being tested. As a result Cypress provides better, faster, and more reliable testing for anything that runs in a browser. Cypress works on any front-end framework or website.

CodeceptJS

CodeceptJS

It is a modern end to end testing framework with a special BDD-style syntax. The test is written as a linear scenario of user's action on a site. Each test is described inside a Scenario function with I object passed into it.

Protractor

Protractor

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.

AVA

AVA

Even though JavaScript is single-threaded, IO in Node.js can happen in parallel due to its async nature. AVA takes advantage of this and runs your tests concurrently, which is especially beneficial for IO heavy tests. In addition, test files are run in parallel as separate processes, giving you even better performance and an isolated environment for each test file.

Ghost Inspector

Ghost Inspector

It 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.

QUnit

QUnit

QUnit is a powerful, easy-to-use JavaScript unit testing framework. It's used by the jQuery, jQuery UI and jQuery Mobile projects and is capable of testing any generic JavaScript code, including itself!

Sorry-cypress

Sorry-cypress

Open-source, self-hosted alternative Cypress Dashboard.

Baretest

Baretest

It is a fast and simple JavaScript test runner. It offers near-instant performance and a brainless API. It makes testing tolerable.

SinonJS

SinonJS

It is a really helpful library when you want to unit test your code. It supports spies, stubs, and mocks. The library has cross browser support and also can run on the server using Node.js.

Chai

Chai

It is a BDD / TDD assertion library for node and the browser that can be delightfully paired with any javascript testing framework. It has several interfaces that allow the developer to choose the most comfortable. The chain-capable BDD styles provide an expressive language & readable style, while the TDD assert style provides a more classical feel.

Related Comparisons

GitHub
Bitbucket

Bitbucket vs GitHub vs GitLab

GitHub
Bitbucket

AWS CodeCommit vs Bitbucket vs GitHub

Kubernetes
Rancher

Docker Swarm vs Kubernetes vs Rancher

gulp
Grunt

Grunt vs Webpack vs gulp

Graphite
Kibana

Grafana vs Graphite vs Kibana