Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

Jest

14.1K
3.8K
+ 1
175
Mocha

10.4K
2.8K
+ 1
430
QUnit

871
83
+ 1
17

Jest vs Mocha vs QUnit: What are the differences?

Introduction:

When it comes to JavaScript testing frameworks, Jest, Mocha, and QUnit are popular choices for developers. Each framework has its unique features and advantages, making them suitable for different testing scenarios.

  1. Test Runner and Assertion Library: Jest is an all-in-one solution that includes both a test runner and an assertion library, making it easy to set up and start testing without additional dependencies. Mocha, on the other hand, provides a test runner but requires an external library like Chai for assertions. QUnit also offers a test runner and assertion library, making it suitable for simple tests.

  2. Mocking and Spying: Jest provides built-in support for mocking and spying functions, making it convenient for simulating behavior in tests. Mocha requires additional libraries like Sinon for mocking and spying. QUnit does not have built-in support for mocking and spying, limiting its capabilities in complex test scenarios.

  3. Coverage Reporting: Jest comes with built-in code coverage reporting, allowing developers to assess how much of their code is being tested. Mocha requires additional tools like Istanbul for code coverage reporting. QUnit does not offer built-in support for code coverage reporting, making it less suitable for monitoring test coverage.

  4. Community and Ecosystem: Jest has a large and active community, providing extensive documentation, plugins, and support for developers. Mocha also has a supportive community but may not offer as many plugins and resources as Jest. QUnit has a smaller community compared to Jest and Mocha, potentially leading to fewer resources and support for users.

  5. Ease of Use: Jest is known for its ease of use and quick setup, making it a preferred choice for developers looking for a simple testing solution. Mocha offers more flexibility and customization options but may require additional configurations for certain features. QUnit is straightforward and easy to use for basic tests but may lack the advanced features and functionalities of Jest and Mocha.

In Summary, Jest, Mocha, and QUnit differ in terms of their test runner capabilities, mocking and spying support, code coverage reporting, community, ecosystem, and ease of use, catering to different testing requirements for JavaScript developers.

Decisions about Jest, Mocha, and QUnit
Ben Herbert
Lead Front End Developer at Crunch · | 4 upvotes · 43.9K views

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.

See more
Shared insights
on
CypressCypressJestJest

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.

See more

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.

See more

We use Mocha for our FDA verification testing. It's integrated into Meteor, our upstream web application framework. We like how battle tested it is, its' syntax, its' options of reporters, and countless other features. Most everybody can agree on mocha, and that gets us half-way through our FDA verification and validation (V&V) testing strategy.

See more
Get Advice from developers at your company using StackShare Enterprise. Sign up for StackShare Enterprise.
Learn More
Pros of Jest
Pros of Mocha
Pros of QUnit
  • 36
    Open source
  • 32
    Mock by default makes testing much simpler
  • 23
    Testing React Native Apps
  • 20
    Parallel test running
  • 16
    Fast
  • 13
    Bundled with JSDOM to enable DOM testing
  • 8
    Mock by default screws up your classes, breaking tests
  • 7
    Out of the box code coverage
  • 7
    Promise support
  • 6
    One stop shop for unit testing
  • 3
    Great documentation
  • 2
    Assert Library Included
  • 1
    Built in watch option with interactive filtering menu
  • 1
    Preset support
  • 0
    Can be used for BDD
  • 0
    Karma
  • 137
    Open source
  • 102
    Simple
  • 81
    Promise support
  • 48
    Flexible
  • 29
    Easy to add support for Generators
  • 12
    For browser and server testing
  • 7
    Curstom assertion libraries
  • 5
    Works with Karma
  • 3
    No other better tools
  • 1
    Simple setup
  • 1
    Works with saucelabs
  • 1
    Lots of tutorials and help online
  • 1
    Default reporter is nice, clean, and itemized
  • 1
    Works with BrowserStack
  • 1
    Simple integration testing
  • 6
    Simple
  • 4
    Open Source
  • 3
    Promise support
  • 3
    Easy setup
  • 1
    Excellent GUI

Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions

Cons of Jest
Cons of Mocha
Cons of QUnit
  • 4
    Documentation
  • 4
    Ambiguous configuration
  • 3
    Difficult
  • 2
    Many bugs still not fixed months/years after reporting
  • 2
    Multiple error messages for same error
  • 2
    Difficult to run single test/describe/file
  • 2
    Ambiguous
  • 2
    Bugged
  • 1
    BeforeAll timing out makes all passing tests fail
  • 1
    Slow
  • 1
    Reporter is too general
  • 1
    Unstable
  • 1
    Bad docs
  • 1
    Still does't support .mjs files natively
  • 1
    Can't fail beforeAll to abort tests
  • 0
    Interaction with watch mode on terminal
  • 3
    Cannot test a promisified functions without assertion
  • 2
    No assertion count in results
  • 1
    Not as many reporter options as Jest
    Be the first to leave a con

    Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions

    What is Jest?

    Jest provides you with multiple layers on top of Jasmine.

    What is Mocha?

    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.

    What is 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!

    Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

    What companies use Jest?
    What companies use Mocha?
    What companies use QUnit?

    Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions

    What tools integrate with Jest?
    What tools integrate with Mocha?
    What tools integrate with QUnit?

    Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions

    Blog Posts

    JavaScriptGitHubNode.js+29
    14
    13391
    JavaScriptGitHubGit+33
    20
    2080
    What are some alternatives to Jest, Mocha, and QUnit?
    Selenium
    Selenium automates browsers. That's it! What you do with that power is entirely up to you. Primarily, it is for automating web applications for testing purposes, but is certainly not limited to just that. Boring web-based administration tasks can (and should!) also be automated as well.
    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.
    Enzyme
    Enzyme is a JavaScript Testing utility for React that makes it easier to assert, manipulate, and traverse your React Components' output.
    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.
    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.
    See all alternatives