Jasmine vs Mocha vs QUnit

Overview

Jasmine

Stacks4.8K

Followers1.5K

Votes187

Mocha

Stacks10.8K

Followers3.0K

Votes430

QUnit

Stacks914

Followers82

Votes17

Jasmine vs Mocha vs QUnit: What are the differences?

Key Differences between Jasmine, Mocha, and QUnit in JavaScript Testing

JavaScript testing frameworks like Jasmine, Mocha, and QUnit greatly simplify the process of writing, organizing, and executing tests for JavaScript code. While all three frameworks serve a similar purpose, there are key differences that set them apart.

Syntax and Assertion Styles:

Jasmine uses a declarative syntax, often referred to as BDD (Behavior-Driven Development), which aims to make tests more readable. It provides its own set of assertion functions like expect, toBe, and toEqual.

Mocha, on the other hand, has a more flexible and versatile syntax, allowing developers to choose from multiple assertion libraries like Chai or should.js. This can be helpful when working with different coding styles or personal preferences.

QUnit follows a more traditional, simple, and minimalistic approach. It features a concise syntax for assertions and test definitions, making it easier to get started with.

Test Runners and Environments:

Jasmine includes its own test runner, providing an all-in-one solution. It comes bundled with a built-in DOM testing environment that mimics a real browser environment, making it suitable for testing web applications.

Mocha, on the other hand, focuses on providing a flexible framework and does not include a built-in test runner. It can be integrated with various test runners like Karma or Jest and can run tests in both browser and Node.js environments.

QUnit, like Mocha, does not have a built-in test runner but is primarily designed to run in the browser environment. It can also be integrated with other build tools or test runners.

Asynchronous Testing:

Jasmine provides built-in support for handling asynchronous operations through a concept called "asynchronous test management." It includes functions like done and async/await, making it easier to write tests that involve asynchronous code.

Mocha, on the other hand, does not have built-in support for handling asynchronous operations. However, it allows developers to use various libraries like async/await, Promises, or callbacks to handle asynchronous code within tests.

QUnit follows a similar approach to Mocha for handling asynchronous code. It does not provide built-in support but can utilize libraries like async/await, Promises, or callbacks for managing asynchronous operations.

Mocking and Spies:

Jasmine provides built-in capabilities for creating mocks and spies. It allows developers to create fake functions or objects and spy on function calls, enabling comprehensive testing and verification of code behavior.

Mocha, by itself, does not provide mocking or spying capabilities. However, it can be combined with libraries like Sinon.js to achieve similar functionality.

QUnit does not include built-in mocking or spying capabilities but can be paired with libraries like Sinon.js for achieving these functionalities.

Plugins and Community Support:

Jasmine has a large community and a rich ecosystem of plugins and extensions. This makes it easier to find solutions to common testing challenges, extend the framework's capabilities, and integrate with other tools seamlessly.

Mocha also has a vast ecosystem with numerous plugins and extensions available. It is particularly popular for its integration with other frameworks and tools, making it a versatile choice.

QUnit, although not as popular as Jasmine or Mocha, still has a dedicated community and some plugins available. However, its plugin ecosystem may not be as extensive as the other two frameworks.

Learning Curve:

Jasmine's declarative syntax and self-contained nature make it relatively easy to get started with. It provides clear and concise error messages, aiding in the debugging process. However, learning all of its features and best practices may require some time.

Mocha's flexible syntax and its capability to integrate with different libraries make it more adaptable but also potentially more complex for newcomers. It may require a deeper understanding of JavaScript testing concepts and libraries.

QUnit's minimalistic approach contributes to its ease of use and a gentle learning curve. It provides straightforward APIs for writing tests and assertions, making it suitable for beginners or developers who prefer a simpler testing framework.

In summary, Jasmine focuses on readability and includes its own test runner and mocking capabilities. Mocha offers a flexible syntax and requires separate libraries for mocking and spies. QUnit is minimalistic, easy to learn, and primarily designed for the browser environment.

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)

Manual

Advice on Jasmine, Mocha, QUnit

Ben

Lead Front End Developer at Crunch

Jan 28, 2022

Decided

We were able to combine multiple tools with Jest and React Testing Library (e.g. sinon, enzyme, chai). Jest has powerful cli options and increased performance including from parallel testing processes. Migrating was reasonably straight forward as there is a code transformation script to do most of the leg work. Jest's documentation is excellent.

47.8k views47.8k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

Jasmine	Mocha	QUnit
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.	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!
-	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 4.8K	Stacks 10.8K	Stacks 914
Followers 1.5K	Followers 3.0K	Followers 82
Votes 187	Votes 430	Votes 17
Pros & Cons
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	Pros 6 Simple 4 Open Source 3 Easy setup 3 Promise support 1 Excellent GUI

What are some alternatives to Jasmine, Mocha, QUnit?

Jest

Jest provides you with multiple layers on top of Jasmine.

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

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 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

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

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.

Sorry-cypress

Open-source, self-hosted alternative Cypress Dashboard.

Baretest

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

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

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

Bitbucket vs GitHub vs GitLab

AWS CodeCommit vs Bitbucket vs GitHub

Docker Swarm vs Kubernetes vs Rancher

Grunt vs Webpack vs gulp

Grafana vs Graphite vs Kibana